CVE-2020-6881 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2020-6881
Vulnerability Scoring

7.5
/10
Very High Risk

Highly exploitable, CVE-2020-6881 poses a critical security risk that could lead to severe breaches.

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity: Low
    Exploits can be performed without significant complexity or special conditions.
  • Attack Vector: Network
    Vulnerability is exploitable over a network without physical access.
  • Privileges Required: None
    No privileges are required for exploitation.
  • Scope: Unchanged
    Exploit remains within the originally vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2020-6881 Details

Status: Modified

Last updated: 🕠 21 Nov 2024, 05:36 UTC
Originally published on: 🕕 21 Dec 2020, 18:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 1430 days

CVSS Release: version 3

CVSS3 Source

nvd@nist.gov

CVSS3 Type

Primary

CVSS3 Vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

CVE-2020-6881 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2020-6881: ZTE E8810/E8820/E8822 series routers have an MQTT DoS vulnerability, which is caused by the failure of the device to verify the validity of abnormal messages. A remote attacker could connect to the MQTT server and send an MQTT exception message to the specified device, which will cause the device to deny service. This affects:<ZXHN E8810, ZXHN E8820, ZXHN E8822><E8810 V1.0.26, E8810 V2.0.1, E8820 V1.1.3L, E8820 V2.0.13, E8822 V2.0.13>

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2020-6881

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2020-6881 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2020-6881

With low attack complexity and no required privileges, CVE-2020-6881 is an easy target for cybercriminals. Organizations should prioritize immediate mitigation measures to prevent unauthorized access and data breaches.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2020-6881, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2020-6881, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2020-6881 has no significant impact on data confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2020-6881 poses no threat to data integrity.
  • Availability: High
    CVE-2020-6881 can disrupt system operations, potentially causing complete denial of service (DoS).

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

The EPSS score estimates the probability that this vulnerability will be exploited in the near future.

EPSS Score: 0.179% (probability of exploit)

EPSS Percentile: 56.16% (lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 43.84% of others.

CVE-2020-6881 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-346

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

  • JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) CAPEC-111 An attacker targets a system that uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a transport mechanism between the client and the server (common in Web 2.0 systems using AJAX) to steal possibly confidential information transmitted from the server back to the client inside the JSON object by taking advantage of the loophole in the browser's Same Origin Policy that does not prohibit JavaScript from one website to be included and executed in the context of another website.
  • Cache Poisoning CAPEC-141 An attacker exploits the functionality of cache technologies to cause specific data to be cached that aids the attackers' objectives. This describes any attack whereby an attacker places incorrect or harmful material in cache. The targeted cache can be an application's cache (e.g. a web browser cache) or a public cache (e.g. a DNS or ARP cache). Until the cache is refreshed, most applications or clients will treat the corrupted cache value as valid. This can lead to a wide range of exploits including redirecting web browsers towards sites that install malware and repeatedly incorrect calculations based on the incorrect value.
  • DNS Cache Poisoning CAPEC-142 A domain name server translates a domain name (such as www.example.com) into an IP address that Internet hosts use to contact Internet resources. An adversary modifies a public DNS cache to cause certain names to resolve to incorrect addresses that the adversary specifies. The result is that client applications that rely upon the targeted cache for domain name resolution will be directed not to the actual address of the specified domain name but to some other address. Adversaries can use this to herd clients to sites that install malware on the victim's computer or to masquerade as part of a Pharming attack.
  • Exploit Script-Based APIs CAPEC-160 Some APIs support scripting instructions as arguments. Methods that take scripted instructions (or references to scripted instructions) can be very flexible and powerful. However, if an attacker can specify the script that serves as input to these methods they can gain access to a great deal of functionality. For example, HTML pages support <script> tags that allow scripting languages to be embedded in the page and then interpreted by the receiving web browser. If the content provider is malicious, these scripts can compromise the client application. Some applications may even execute the scripts under their own identity (rather than the identity of the user providing the script) which can allow attackers to perform activities that would otherwise be denied to them.
  • Exploitation of Trusted Identifiers CAPEC-21 An adversary guesses, obtains, or "rides" a trusted identifier (e.g. session ID, resource ID, cookie, etc.) to perform authorized actions under the guise of an authenticated user or service.
  • Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle CAPEC-384 An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages. Performing this attack can allow the attacker to gain unauthorized privileges within the application, or conduct attacks such as phishing, deceptive strategies to spread malware, or traditional web-application attacks. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to perform adversary-in-the-middle (CAPEC-94) communications between the web browser and the remote system. Despite the use of AiTH software, the attack is actually directed at the server, as the client is one node in a series of content brokers that pass information along to the application framework. Additionally, it is not true "Adversary-in-the-Middle" attack at the network layer, but an application-layer attack the root cause of which is the master applications trust in the integrity of code supplied by the client.
  • Transaction or Event Tampering via Application API Manipulation CAPEC-385 An attacker hosts or joins an event or transaction within an application framework in order to change the content of messages or items that are being exchanged. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that look authentic but may contain deceptive links, substitute one item or another, spoof an existing item and conduct a false exchange, or otherwise change the amounts or identity of what is being exchanged. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system in order to change the content of various application elements. Often, items exchanged in game can be monetized via sales for coin, virtual dollars, etc. The purpose of the attack is for the attack to scam the victim by trapping the data packets involved the exchange and altering the integrity of the transfer process.
  • Application API Navigation Remapping CAPEC-386 An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of links/buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains links/buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination. Some applications make navigation remapping more difficult to detect because the actual HREF values of images, profile elements, and links/buttons are masked. One example would be to place an image in a user's photo gallery that when clicked upon redirected the user to an off-site location. Also, traditional web vulnerabilities (such as CSRF) can be constructed with remapped buttons or links. In some cases navigation remapping can be used for Phishing attacks or even means to artificially boost the page view, user site reputation, or click-fraud.
  • Navigation Remapping To Propagate Malicious Content CAPEC-387 An adversary manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages and thereby circumvent the expected application logic.
  • Application API Button Hijacking CAPEC-388 An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination.
  • SaaS User Request Forgery CAPEC-510 An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, performs malicious actions against a third-party Software as a Service (SaaS) application (also known as a cloud based application) by leveraging the persistent and implicit trust placed on a trusted user's session. This attack is executed after a trusted user is authenticated into a cloud service, "piggy-backing" on the authenticated session, and exploiting the fact that the cloud service believes it is only interacting with the trusted user. If successful, the actions embedded in the malicious application will be processed and accepted by the targeted SaaS application and executed at the trusted user's privilege level.
  • Session Credential Falsification through Prediction CAPEC-59 This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
  • Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay) CAPEC-60 This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.
  • Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files CAPEC-75 Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users.
  • Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls CAPEC-76 An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
  • Pharming CAPEC-89 A pharming attack occurs when the victim is fooled into entering sensitive data into supposedly trusted locations, such as an online bank site or a trading platform. An attacker can impersonate these supposedly trusted sites and have the victim be directed to their site rather than the originally intended one. Pharming does not require script injection or clicking on malicious links for the attack to succeed.

Vulnerable Configurations

  • cpe:2.3:o:zte:zxhn_e8810_firmware:1.0.26:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:o:zte:zxhn_e8810_firmware:1.0.26:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:o:zte:zxhn_e8810_firmware:2.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:o:zte:zxhn_e8810_firmware:2.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:zte:zxhn_e8810:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:zte:zxhn_e8810:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:o:zte:zxhn_e8820_firmware:1.1.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:o:zte:zxhn_e8820_firmware:1.1.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:o:zte:zxhn_e8820_firmware:2.0.13:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:o:zte:zxhn_e8820_firmware:2.0.13:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:zte:zxhn_e8820:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:zte:zxhn_e8820:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:o:zte:zxhn_e8822_firmware:2.0.13:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:o:zte:zxhn_e8822_firmware:2.0.13:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:zte:zxhn_e8822:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:zte:zxhn_e8822:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2020-6881: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-2130 – A vulnerability was found in OpenXE up to 1.12. It has been declared as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component Ticke...
  • CVE-2025-26205 – Lua 5.4.7, when the debug library is used, has a out-of-bounds read and segmentation violation in mainpositionTV in ltable.c. NOTE: this is dispute...
  • CVE-2025-26204 – Lua 5.4.7, when the debug library is used, has a out-of-bounds read and segmentation violation in equalkey in ltable.c. NOTE: this is disputed beca...
  • CVE-2025-2129 – A vulnerability was found in Mage AI 0.9.75. It has been classified as problematic. This affects an unknown part. The manipulation leads to insecur...
  • CVE-2025-2127 – A vulnerability was found in JoomlaUX JUX Real Estate 3.4.0 on Joomla. It has been classified as problematic. Affected is an unknown function of th...