CVE-2020-6995
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn Moxa PT-7528 series firmware, Version 4.0 or lower, and PT-7828 series firmware, Version 3.9 or lower, the application utilizes weak password requirements, which may allow an attacker to gain unauthorized access.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceMoxa PT-7528 (firmware v4.0 or lower) and PT-7828 (firmware v3.9 or lower) industrial ethernet switches contain weak password requirements that allow attackers to gain unauthorized access, likely due to insufficient password complexity enforcement and/or default credentials.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 4.0<= 4.0<= 4.0<= 4.0<= 4.0<= 4.0<= 4.0<= 4.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify device model and firmware versionAccess the device web interface or console and navigate to System Settings > Firmware Information, or use the command line and run 'show system info' or 'get firmware version'Affected if The device model is PT-7528 with firmware <= 4.0 or PT-7828 with firmware <= 3.9
-
Check current password policy settingsIn the web interface, go to Administration > User Account or Security > Password Policy. Look for minimum password length, complexity requirements, and password history settingsAffected if No password complexity requirements are enforced, or minimum password length is set to less than 8 characters
-
Verify if default credentials are still activeLog into the device using the default admin account (check Moxa documentation for factory defaults). Attempt to change the admin password and note if weak passwords like 'admin' or 'moxa' are acceptedAffected if Default administrative accounts remain active with factory-set passwords or easily guessable passwords
-
Review user account list for weak passwordsIn the device management interface, view all local user accounts. Check if any accounts have passwords that meet basic complexity standards (mixed case, numbers, special characters)Affected if User accounts exist with passwords that do not require uppercase, lowercase, numbers, and special characters
A user is affected if they are running PT-7528 firmware 4.0 or lower, or PT-7828 firmware 3.9 or lower, and the device has weak or default passwords configured without complexity enforcement.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade firmware to versions beyond 4.0 for PT-7528 and beyond 3.9 for PT-7828 once available from Moxa, and enforce strong password policies.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-6995 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-6995 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data