CVE-2020-9630
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 · uneditedMagento versions 2.3.4 and earlier, 2.2.11 and earlier (see note), 1.14.4.4 and earlier, and 1.9.4.4 and earlier have a business logic error vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to privilege escalation.
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 · moderate confidenceThis is a business logic error vulnerability in Magento e-commerce platforms affecting multiple version branches (1.9.x, 1.14.x, 2.2.x, 2.3.x). The flaw allows attackers to escalate privileges, likely by manipulating authentication or authorization flows to gain administrative access they should not have.
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<= 1.9.4.4<= 1.14.4.4>= 2.2.0, <= 2.2.11>= 2.3.0, <= 2.3.4CVSS 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.
-
Identify Magento installation and versionLocate the Magento core version file: For M1 check app/etc/etc.xml or composer.json for version tag. For M2 check composer.json or the file vendor/magento/framework/Composer/Helper.php for the 'version' field.Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: Magento 1.x <= 1.9.4.4, Magento 1.14.x <= 1.14.4.4, Magento 2.2.x >= 2.2.0 through <= 2.2.11, or Magento 2.3.x >= 2.3.0 through <= 2.3.4.
-
Confirm Magento edition (Community vs Enterprise)Check the composer.json file for the package name, or look for a license file or license.php in the root or app/etc/ directory that indicates whether this is Magento Community (CE) or Enterprise (EE).Affected if The instance is running any affected version of Magento Community or Magento Enterprise editions.
-
Verify admin user access controlsReview admin user accounts in the database table admin_user (M1) or admin_user (M2) to confirm only authorized users exist. Check for any unexpected admin accounts or privilege changes in admin_action_log or similar audit tables.Affected if Unexpected or unauthorized admin accounts exist in the system, or multiple users have super admin privileges beyond what the business requires.
-
Inspect admin panel access logsReview admin login logs, typically found in var/log/ (M1) or var/log/audit.log or the database table admin_log or enterprise_log (depending on version). Look for suspicious admin login activity from unusual IP addresses or at unusual times.Affected if There is evidence of admin access from IPs or accounts not recognized as legitimate administrator users.
-
Check for custom admin URL and authentication configurationExamine local.xml (M1) or env.php (M2) in app/etc/ to confirm the admin path is not the default /admin and that proper authentication modules are enabled. Verify the admin/frontName in env.php matches your expected custom admin URL.Affected if The admin panel uses the default /admin path or authentication bypass modules are present in the configuration.
You are affected if your Magento installation version falls within the ranges 1.x <= 1.9.4.4, 1.14.x <= 1.14.4.4, 2.2.x <= 2.2.11, or 2.3.x <= 2.3.4, or if unauthorized admin accounts or suspicious admin access patterns are detected on any such version.
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 · scopedApply the vendor-supplied security patch or upgrade to a patched Magento version immediately, as this critical (CVSS 9.8) flaw enables unauthorized admin access.
Magento 1.9.4.5; Magento 1.14.4.5; Magento 2.2.12; Magento 2.3.5
- Consult the official Adobe security bulletin at helpx.adobe.com for the complete list of fixed Magento versions and patch details
- Identify your current Magento installation version from the admin panel or composer.json
- For Magento 1.x: Upgrade to Magento 1.9.4.5 or later, or apply the official SUPEE patch if available
- For Magento 2.2.x: Upgrade to Magento 2.2.12 or later
- For Magento 2.3.x: Upgrade to Magento 2.3.5 or later
- Verify the upgrade in a staging environment before production deployment
- Test all admin functionality and user role permissions post-upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,928.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-9630 — 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-2020-9630 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