Elastic Cloud On KubernetesApplication · Elastic
CVE-2020-7010
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 · uneditedElastic Cloud on Kubernetes (ECK) versions prior to 1.1.0 generate passwords using a weak random number generator. If an attacker is able to determine when the current Elastic Stack cluster was deployed they may be able to more easily brute force the Elasticsearch credentials generated by ECK.
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 · high confidenceECK versions before 1.1.0 use a weak random number generator to create Elasticsearch passwords. The predictability is compounded by the fact that knowing the cluster deployment timestamp significantly reduces the password search space, enabling easier brute-force attacks on 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
Elastic Cloud On KubernetesApplication
< 1.1.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Check ECK operator versionRun 'kubectl get pods -n elastic-system -l control-plane=operator' and check the image tag in the container spec, or check the deployed operator deployment/CSV versionAffected if Version is below 1.1.0 (e.g., 1.0.x, 1.0.0, etc.)
-
Identify Elasticsearch user passwords created by ECKReview Kubernetes secrets in the Elastic namespace: 'kubectl get secrets -n <elastic-namespace>' and check for user-password and bootstrap-password secrets created by the ECK operatorAffected if Password secrets exist and were created when ECK was below version 1.1.0
-
Check cluster deployment timestampRun 'kubectl get elasticsearch <cluster-name> -n <namespace> -o jsonpath={.metadata.creationTimestamp}' to get the cluster creation timeAffected if Cluster was created while running ECK version below 1.1.0, making passwords more vulnerable to brute-force due to reduced search space
-
Review operator logs for password generationCheck operator logs: 'kubectl logs -n elastic-system -l control-plane=operator' for entries indicating password generation using SecureRandom or Math.randomAffected if Logs show password generation occurred before ECK upgrade to 1.1.0 or later
User is affected if ECK operator version is below 1.1.0 and Elasticsearch user passwords were generated by that vulnerable version, especially if the cluster deployment timestamp is known to attackers.
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 data1.1.0
Upgrade ECK to version 1.1.0 or later and rotate all Elasticsearch passwords generated by the old version.
Fix this in Elastic Cloud On Kubernetes
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-7010 — 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-2020-7010 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