CVE-2020-8816
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 · uneditedPi-hole Web v4.3.2 (aka AdminLTE) allows Remote Code Execution by privileged dashboard users via a crafted DHCP static lease.
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 confidencePi-hole AdminLTE v4.3.2 contains an authenticated RCE vulnerability in the DHCP static lease creation feature. Privileged dashboard users can inject and execute arbitrary shell commands through crafted static lease entries due to insufficient input sanitization.
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<= 4.3.2CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 Pi-hole AdminLTE versionNavigate to the web dashboard (usually http://<pi-hole-ip>/admin) and check the version displayed in the footer, or run command: `pihole -v` or check the file `/etc/pihole/versions`Affected if Version displayed is 4.3.2 or lower (e.g., 4.3.1, 4.3.0, etc.)
-
Verify DHCP server is enabledIn the web dashboard, go to DHCP > DHCP Settings and check if the DHCP server is turned on, or inspect the config file at `/etc/pihole/dhcp.conf`Affected if DHCP server is enabled and active
-
Confirm static lease functionality is accessibleIn the web dashboard, navigate to DHCP > Static DHCP Leases and verify the interface to add new static leases is presentAffected if Static lease creation interface is available and functional
-
Check for existing privileged dashboard usersIn the web dashboard, go to Settings > Users or Authentication to list users with dashboard access, or check `/etc/pihole/setupVars.conf` for web password configurationAffected if Any user account has dashboard administrative privileges
You are affected if Pi-hole AdminLTE version is 4.3.2 or lower, the DHCP server is enabled, and a privileged user can access the static lease creation feature.
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 dataRestrict dashboard access to trusted administrators only. Apply the vendor patch (v4.3.2+) which adds proper input validation/sanitization to DHCP static lease parameters.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-8816 — 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-2020-8816 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