Huawei FusionCompute versions 6.5.1 and 8.0.0 have a command injection vulnerability.
Huawei FusionCompute versions 6.5.1 and 8.0.0 have a command injection vulnerability. An authenticated, remote attacker can craft specific request to exploit this vulnerability. Due to insufficient verification, this could be exploited to cause the attackers to obtain higher privilege.
- Published
- Nov 30, 2020
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.0% · 62th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-77
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
28
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 28 / 40 · 7.2 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.0%
Affected systems
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| huawei | fusioncompute | cpe:2.3:a:huawei:fusioncompute |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- huawei fusioncompute6.5.1
- huawei fusioncompute8.0.0
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (huawei). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
n/a FusionCompute
- 6.5.1,8.0.0affected
Same product
huawei: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2020-9233FusionCompute 8.0.0 have an insufficient authentication vulnerability.36Monitor
- CVE-2020-9236There is an improper interface design vulnerability in Huawei product.35Monitor
- CVE-2021-37102There is a command injection vulnerability in CMA service module of FusionCompute product when processing the default certificate file.35Monitor
- CVE-2020-9242FusionCompute 8.0.0 have a command injection vulnerability.35Monitor
- CVE-2020-9222There is a privilege escalation vulnerability in Huawei FusionCompute product.31Monitor
- CVE-2020-9114FusionCompute versions 6.3.0, 6.3.1, 6.5.0, 6.5.1 and 8.0.0 have a privilege escalation vulnerability.31Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- Administrator privileges are required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-77 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- LDAP InjectionCAPEC-136likelihood: High · High
- Command DelimitersCAPEC-15likelihood: High · High
- IMAP/SMTP Command InjectionCAPEC-183Medium
- Command InjectionCAPEC-248likelihood: Medium · High
- Manipulating Writeable Terminal DevicesCAPEC-40likelihood: High · Very High
- Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation LayersCAPEC-43likelihood: Medium · High
- Manipulating Writeable Configuration FilesCAPEC-75likelihood: High · Very High
- Manipulating Web Input to File System CallsCAPEC-76likelihood: High · Very High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for all 385,000+ vulnerabilities; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for helpChange log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.