CVE-2020-9411
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 · uneditedThe file transfer component of TIBCO Software Inc.'s TIBCO Managed File Transfer Platform Server for IBM i contains a vulnerability that theoretically allows an attacker to perform unauthorized network file transfers to and from the file system accessible to the affected component. This vulnerability is exploitable when the configuration option 'Require Node Resp' is set to 'No'. In the event of a successful exploit, the attacker could theoretically read and write any file on the file system accessible to the affected component, thus fully affecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the operating system hosting the deployment of the affected system. Affected releases are TIBCO Software Inc.'s TIBCO Managed File Transfer Platform Server for IBM i: versions 7.1.0 and below, version 8.0.0.
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 confidenceA file transfer vulnerability in TIBCO Managed File Transfer Platform Server for IBM i allows unauthorized network file transfers when the configuration option 'Require Node Resp' is set to 'No', enabling an attacker to read and write any file accessible to the affected component.
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<= 7.1.0= 8.0.0CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Confirm IBM i platformVerify that the installed TIBCO Managed File Transfer product is the Platform Server running on IBM i (AS/400) operating system. This vulnerability only affects the IBM i platform variant.Affected if The product is running on any platform other than IBM i (the vulnerability is specific to IBM i)
-
Identify installed versionLocate the TIBCO Managed File Transfer Platform Server version information in the product installation or through its administrative interface. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: versions 7.1.0 and earlier, or version 8.0.0.Affected if The installed version is 7.1.0 or earlier, or exactly 8.0.0
-
Check Require Node Resp configurationAccess the TIBCO MFT Platform Server configuration settings (typically found in the IBM i configuration panels or configuration files) and locate the 'Require Node Resp' option. Verify whether it is set to 'No' or disabled.Affected if The 'Require Node Resp' option is set to 'No' (disabled)
-
Verify network accessibilityConfirm that the MFT Platform Server has network connectivity and is accepting file transfer requests. Check if the file transfer service port is exposed to untrusted networks.Affected if The MFT service is network-accessible from untrusted locations
The environment is affected if running TIBCO MFT Platform Server on IBM i with a version <= 7.1.0 or = 8.0.0, and the 'Require Node Resp' configuration is set to 'No'.
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.
dbcve · scopedEnable the 'Require Node Resp' configuration option to require node authentication and prevent unauthorized file system access.
- Locate the configuration option 'Require Node Resp' in the TIBCO Managed File Transfer Platform Server for IBM i administrative interface or configuration files
- Change the 'Require Node Resp' setting from 'No' to 'Yes'
- Restart the affected TIBCO Managed File Transfer Platform Server service to apply the configuration change
- Verify that the configuration change was applied successfully by checking the server status and reviewing audit logs
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-9411 — 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-2020-9411 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