CVE-2020-7740
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 · uneditedThis affects all versions of package node-pdf-generator. Due to lack of user input validation and sanitization done to the content given to node-pdf-generator, it is possible for an attacker to craft a url that will be passed to an external server allowing an SSRF attack.
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 confidenceThe node-pdf-generator package suffers from a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability. The package accepts user-supplied content and constructs URLs without validating or sanitizing the input, allowing attackers to specify arbitrary URLs that the server will request. This enables internal network reconnaissance and potential access to internal services.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/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 if node-pdf-generator is installedRun 'npm list node-pdf-generator' or 'npm list --depth=0' in your project directory to see if the package is listed as a dependencyAffected if The package appears in the npm list output, meaning it is installed in your environment
-
Inspect package.json for the dependencyExamine your package.json file and search for 'node-pdf-generator' in the dependencies or devDependencies sectionAffected if The package is listed as a dependency in package.json
-
Verify the vulnerable code path is reachableSearch your codebase for instances where the package is imported and examine how URLs are passed to it. Look for patterns like 'pdfGenerator.fromUrl(url)' or similar where a URL parameter could be user-controlledAffected if Your code passes URL parameters to the package and those URLs can originate from user input (request parameters, API bodies, etc.)
-
Check for user-facing URL inputReview your application's endpoints, APIs, or functions that accept URLs and pass them to node-pdf-generator. Identify if external users or untrusted sources can supply these URLsAffected if User-supplied or externally-sourced URLs can reach the node-pdf-generator functionality
You are affected if node-pdf-generator is installed in your project and your application accepts user-controlled URLs that get passed to the package for PDF generation.
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 dataImplement strict URL validation using an allowlist of permitted domains/IPs, validate that URLs use allowed protocols (http/https only), and reject any URLs pointing to internal/private network addresses (localhost, 192.168.x.x, 10.x.x.x, etc.). Alternatively, remove the functionality that accepts arbitrary URLs if not required.
- Consultation3.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-7740 — 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-2020-7740 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