CVE-2020-7940
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 · uneditedMissing password strength checks on some forms in Plone 4.3 through 5.2.0 allow users to set weak passwords, leading to easier cracking.
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 confidencePlone 4.3 through 5.2.0 lacks proper password strength validation on certain forms, allowing users to set weak passwords that are vulnerable to brute-force or dictionary attacks. This authentication weakness increases the risk of account compromise.
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>= 4.3.0, <= 5.2.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Identify Plone versionLog into the Plone site as an administrator, navigate to Site Setup (or ZMI), and locate the version information. Alternatively, check the version.py or setup.py in the Plone installation directory.Affected if The installed Plone version is >= 4.3.0 and <= 5.2.0
-
Locate password policy settingsAccess Site Setup > Security or Password Policy in the Plone control panel. If using the ZMI, navigate to portal_password_policy or portal_registry to find password-related configuration keys.Affected if Password strength validation is disabled, set to low complexity, or absent from the configuration
-
Verify password validation on registration formUse the browser or API to examine the registration form (join form) and submit a weak password such as 'password123'. Check if the form accepts it without warning or error.Affected if The form accepts passwords that do not meet minimum complexity requirements (e.g., no length/complexity enforcement)
-
Check password change form enforcementNavigate to the password change form (My Preferences or Site Setup > Password). Test submitting a weak password and observe whether validation blocks it.Affected if The password change form does not enforce minimum strength requirements
-
Review Plone PAS plugin configurationAccess the Plone Authentication (PAS) setup via ZMI at acl_users > plugin_registration. Check if any password strength enforcement plugins are active and properly configured.Affected if No password strength enforcement plugin is active or configured in PAS
You are affected if your Plone version is between 4.3.0 and 5.2.0 AND password strength validation is not enforced on your registration and password change forms.
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 and enforce password strength validation with configurable minimum complexity requirements on all password creation/modification forms, and prompt existing users with weak passwords to update them.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-7940 — 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-2020-7940 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