SatelliteApplication · Redhat
CVE-2021-20256
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 · uneditedA flaw was found in Red Hat Satellite. The BMC interface exposes the password through the API to an authenticated local attacker with view_hosts permission. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability.
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 confidenceRed Hat Satellite's BMC (Baseboard Management Controller) interface has an information disclosure vulnerability where BMC passwords are exposed in plaintext through the API to authenticated users with view_hosts permission. This allows a local authenticated attacker to retrieve sensitive BMC credentials that could then be used for further system compromise.
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
SatelliteApplication
= 6.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 Red Hat Satellite versionRun 'satellite-installer --version' or check /etc/redhat-release for Satellite versionAffected if Version is 6.0 (exact match)
-
Verify BMC provisioning is enabledCheck Satellite UI under Infrastructure > Subnets or run 'hammer subnet list' to see if BMC is configured. Also check /etc/foreman-proxy/settings.yml for BMC enabled statusAffected if BMC provisioning feature is configured or enabled in Satellite
-
Check for users with view_hosts permissionNavigate to Administer > Users in Satellite UI, or run 'hammer role filters list' to identify roles containing the view_hosts permissionAffected if Any user accounts exist with view_hosts permission granted
-
Test API for BMC password disclosureUsing an authenticated API session with a view_hosts user, query: GET /api/hosts/:id/bmc. Check if the response contains 'password' fields with plaintext values rather than masked valuesAffected if API returns BMC password in plaintext in the response
You are affected if running Red Hat Satellite 6.0 with BMC provisioning enabled and any user has view_hosts permission, as the API will expose BMC credentials in plaintext.
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 API access and implement proper password masking in Satellite's BMC interface responses. Review and limit user permissions to view_hosts to only those who absolutely require it, and rotate any exposed BMC passwords as a precaution.
Fix this in Satellite
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-20256 — 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-2021-20256 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