CVE-2020-8660
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 · uneditedCNCF Envoy through 1.13.0 TLS inspector bypass. TLS inspector could have been bypassed (not recognized as a TLS client) by a client using only TLS 1.3. Because TLS extensions (SNI, ALPN) were not inspected, those connections might have been matched to a wrong filter chain, possibly bypassing some security restrictions in the process.
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 TLS inspector in Envoy through 1.13.0 failed to properly inspect TLS 1.3 connections, allowing clients using only TLS 1.3 to bypass the TLS inspector. Since TLS extensions such as SNI (Server Name Indication) and ALPN (Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation) were not inspected, connections could be matched to the wrong filter chain, potentially bypassing security restrictions based on these TLS parameters.
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< 1.12.3>= 1.13.0, < 1.13.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.
-
Determine installed Envoy versionRun `envoy --version` or check the binary metadata to obtain the exact version numberAffected if Version is < 1.12.3 OR >= 1.13.0 and < 1.13.1 (these are the vulnerable versions)
-
Identify listeners using TLS inspectionReview Envoy configuration files (typically YAML) for listener definitions that include `tls_inspector: true` or the TLS inspector filterAffected if TLS inspector is enabled on any listener
-
Verify filter chain matching uses SNI or ALPNExamine the Envoy configuration for filter chain match criteria, specifically looking for `sni_domains` or `alpn` in the match rulesAffected if Filter chain matching rules rely on SNI or ALPN parameters
-
Confirm TLS 1.3 is permittedCheck listener TLS configuration for `tls_version` or cipher suites; TLS 1.3 is typically enabled by default in modern OpenSSL/BoringSSL buildsAffected if TLS 1.3 connections are allowed (which is the default in affected versions)
You are affected if you run Envoy version < 1.12.3 or >= 1.13.0 but < 1.13.1, have TLS inspector enabled, and use filter chain matching on SNI or ALPN with TLS 1.3 clients allowed.
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 data1.12.31.13.1
Upgrade Envoy to version 1.14.0 or later, which includes the fix for properly inspecting TLS 1.3 connections and its extensions. After upgrading, verify that filter chain matching rules are working correctly for TLS 1.3 connections.
- 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-2020-8660 — 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-2020-8660 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