CVE-2020-8587
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 · uneditedOnCommand System Manager 9.x versions prior to 9.3P20 and 9.4 prior to 9.4P3 are susceptible to a vulnerability that could allow HTTP clients to cache sensitive responses making them accessible to an attacker who has access to the system where the client runs.
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 confidenceOnCommand System Manager versions prior to 9.3P20 and 9.4P3 contain a vulnerability where HTTP clients may cache sensitive server responses locally. An attacker with physical or logical access to the client system could potentially retrieve cached sensitive data from the client's HTTP cache.
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>= 9.0, < 9.3= 9.3= 9.4CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Identify OnCommand System Manager installationLocate OnCommand System Manager on the system or check for processes or services associated with this NetApp productAffected if OnCommand System Manager is installed and running
-
Determine installed versionUse system utilities, product-specific commands, or check the software inventory to retrieve the exact version number of OnCommand System ManagerAffected if The version is not 9.3P20 or 9.4P3 (or later)
-
Compare against affected versionsVerify the installed version falls within the vulnerable range: versions 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, or 9.4Affected if The installed version is any of 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, or 9.4 (non-Patch versions)
The environment is affected if OnCommand System Manager is installed with a version between 9.0 and 9.4, since these versions cache sensitive HTTP responses locally and an attacker with access to the client could retrieve that cached data.
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 data9.3
Upgrade OnCommand System Manager to version 9.3P20 or 9.4P3 or later to resolve this vulnerability.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-8587 — 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-2020-8587 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