CVE-2020-8987
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 · uneditedAvast AntiTrack before 1.5.1.172 and AVG Antitrack before 2.0.0.178 proxies traffic to HTTPS sites but does not validate certificates, and thus a man-in-the-middle can host a malicious website using a self-signed certificate. No special action necessary by the victim using AntiTrack with "Allow filtering of HTTPS traffic for tracking detection" enabled. (This is the default configuration.)
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 confidenceAvast AntiTrack and AVG AntiTrack versions before 1.5.1.172 and 2.0.0.178 respectively proxy HTTPS traffic for tracking detection but fail to validate SSL/TLS certificates, allowing a man-in-the-middle attacker with a self-signed certificate to intercept and modify encrypted traffic.
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< 1.5.1.172< 2.0.0.178CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Find Avast AntiTrack versionOpen Avast AntiTrack, go to Settings > About, or check Programs and Features for the installed version numberAffected if Installed version is below 1.5.1.172
-
Find AVG AntiTrack versionOpen AVG AntiTrack, go to Settings > About, or check Programs and Features for the installed version numberAffected if Installed version is below 2.0.0.178
-
Check if HTTPS filtering is enabledGo to Avast/AVG AntiTrack Settings > Protection or Network section and look for 'Allow filtering of HTTPS traffic for tracking detection' or similar HTTPS proxy settingAffected if HTTPS traffic filtering toggle is turned ON and a vulnerable version is installed
You are affected if either Avast AntiTrack is below version 1.5.1.172 or AVG AntiTrack is below version 2.0.0.178, AND the HTTPS traffic filtering feature is enabled.
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 data1.5.1.1722.0.0.178
Update to Avast AntiTrack 1.5.1.172+ or AVG AntiTrack 2.0.0.178+ to resolve the certificate validation bypass; alternatively, disable the 'Allow filtering of HTTPS traffic for tracking detection' setting if updates are unavailable.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-8987 — 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-2020-8987 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