CVE-2020-9058
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 · uneditedZ-Wave devices based on Silicon Labs 500 series chipsets using CRC-16 encapsulation, including but likely not limited to the Linear LB60Z-1 version 3.5, Dome DM501 version 4.26, and Jasco ZW4201 version 4.05, do not implement encryption or replay protection.
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 confidenceZ-Wave devices using Silicon Labs 500 series chipsets with CRC-16 encapsulation lack encryption and replay protection, allowing attackers to intercept, modify, and replay Z-Wave commands to control devices like door locks, lighting, and sensors.
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 dataall versions= 4.26= 4.05= 3.5CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/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.
-
Identify Z-Wave device chipsetCheck your Z-Wave device documentation or use a Z-Wave network scanner to determine if the device uses a Silicon Labs 500 series chipset. Common tools include Z-Wave PC Controller software or the Z-Wave Alliance product database.Affected if Device uses a Silicon Labs 500 series chipset and does not support S2 encryption
-
Check Dome Dm501 firmware versionUse the Dome mobile app or Z-Wave controller interface to view the device firmware version. Navigate to device settings or system information.Affected if Firmware version equals 4.26
-
Check Jasco Zw4201 firmware versionUse the Jasco mobile app or Z-Wave controller interface to view the device firmware version. Check device properties or system information panel.Affected if Firmware version equals 4.05
-
Check Linear Lb60z 1 firmware versionUse the Linear mobile app or Z-Wave controller interface to view the device firmware version. Access device details through the controller.Affected if Firmware version equals 3.5
-
Verify S2 encryption statusAccess your Z-Wave controller (hub) and check the security classes or encryption settings for each Z-Wave device. Look for S2 (Security 2) class inclusion status. If the device shows only S0 or no security class, it may be vulnerable.Affected if Device uses Silabs 500 series firmware with no S2 encryption class included
A device is affected if it uses Silicon Labs 500 series firmware (any version for generic chipsets, or specific versions 4.26, 4.05, 3.5 for listed products) and does not have S2 encryption 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 dataReplace or upgrade affected devices to models supporting S2 encryption; for existing deployments, segment Z-Wave networks and monitor for anomalous device communications.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-9058 — 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-2020-9058 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