CVE-2020-1736: A flaw was found in Ansible Engine when a file is moved using atomic_move primitive as the file mode cannot be specified.
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 13/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.40% (FIRST EPSS).
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: ansible (openSUSE:Leap 15.3) 2.9.21-bp153.2.3.1; ansible (PyPI) 2.8.9, 2.9.6, 2.7.17; ansible (Red Hat:ansible_engine:2.8::el7) 0:2.8.15-1.el7ae.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to ansible (openSUSE:Leap 15.3) 2.9.21-bp153.2.3.1; ansible (PyPI) 2.8.9, 2.9.6, 2.7.17; ansible (Red Hat:ansible_engine:2.8::el7) 0:2.8.15-1.el7ae or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
A flaw was found in Ansible Engine when a file is moved using atomic_move primitive as the file mode cannot be specified. This sets the destination files world-readable if the destination file does not exist and if the file exists, the file could be changed to have less restrictive permissions before the move. This could lead to the disclosure of sensitive data. All versions in 2.7.x, 2.8.x and 2.9.x branches are believed to be vulnerable.
- Published
- Mar 16, 2020
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.4% · 34th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-732
Report tools
Action score
13
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 13 / 40 · 3.3 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.4%
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 3.3
- CNA · redhat
- 2.2
- 1.1 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| redhat | ansible | cpe:2.3:a:redhat:ansible |
| redhat | ansible tower | cpe:2.3:a:redhat:ansible_tower |
| redhat | cloudforms management engine | cpe:2.3:a:redhat:cloudforms_management_engine |
| redhat | openstack | cpe:2.3:a:redhat:openstack |
| fedoraproject | fedora | cpe:2.3:o:fedoraproject:fedora |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- fedoraproject fedora31
- fedoraproject fedora32
- redhat ansible2.9.0 and later · before 2.9.13
- redhat ansibleup to 2.7.16 inclusive
- redhat ansible2.8.0 and later · before 2.8.15
- redhat ansible tower3.3.5 and later · up to 3.4.5 inclusive
- redhat ansible tower3.6.0 and later · up to 3.6.3 inclusive
- redhat ansible tower3.7.0 and later · up to 3.7.2 inclusive
- redhat ansible tower3.5.0 and later · up to 3.5.5 inclusive
- redhat ansible towerup to 3.3.4 inclusive
- redhat cloudforms management engine5.0
- redhat openstack13
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (redhat). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Red Hat ansible
- 2.7.x, 2.8.x, 2.9.xaffected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | ansible | from 0 | — |
| openSUSE:Leap 15.3 | ansible | before 2.9.21-bp153.2.3.1 | 2.9.21-bp153.2.3.1 |
| PyPI | ansible | from 2.7.0 · up to and including 2.10.0 | — |
| PyPI | ansible | from 2.8.0 · before 2.8.9 | 2.8.9 |
| PyPI | ansible | from 2.9.0 · before 2.9.6 | 2.9.6 |
| PyPI | ansible | before 2.7.17 | 2.7.17 |
| Red Hat:ansible_engine:2.8::el7 | ansible | before 0:2.8.15-1.el7ae | 0:2.8.15-1.el7ae |
| Red Hat:ansible_engine:2.8::el8 | ansible | before 0:2.8.15-1.el8ae | 0:2.8.15-1.el8ae |
| SUSE:Package Hub 15 SP3 | ansible | before 2.9.21-bp153.2.3.1 | 2.9.21-bp153.2.3.1 |
Same product
redhat: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2014-4678The safe_eval function in Ansible before 1.6.4 does not properly restrict the code subset, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrar41Plan
- CVE-2014-4657The safe_eval function in Ansible before 1.5.4 does not properly restrict the code subset, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrar40Plan
- CVE-2014-4967Multiple argument injection vulnerabilities in Ansible before 1.6.7 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by leveraging access to40Plan
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-1739Mar 12, 2020 · A flaw was found in Ansible 2.7.16 and prior, 2.8.8 and prior, and 2.9.5 and prior when a password is set with the argument "password" of sv15Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-1735Mar 16, 2020 · A flaw was found in the Ansible Engine when the fetch module is used.18Monitor
- Later →CVE-2020-1738Mar 16, 2020 · A flaw was found in Ansible Engine when the module package or service is used and the parameter 'use' is not specified.15Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| opensuse:ansible | 2.9.21-bp153.2.3.1 · openSUSE:Leap 15.3 | Package registry (OSV) |
| PyPI:ansible | 2.7.17 | Package registry (OSV) |
| PyPI:ansible | 2.8.9 | Package registry (OSV) |
| PyPI:ansible | 2.9.6 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:ansible | 0:2.8.15-1.el7ae · Red Hat:ansible_engine:2.8::el7 | Package registry (OSV) |
| suse:ansible | 2.9.21-bp153.2.3.1 · SUSE:Package Hub 15 SP3 | Package registry (OSV) |
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.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
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
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- low · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- Low
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-732 · Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical ResourceCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
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)
- Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLsCAPEC-1likelihood: High · High
- Privilege AbuseCAPEC-122likelihood: High · Medium
- Directory IndexingCAPEC-127likelihood: High · Medium
- Using Malicious FilesCAPEC-17likelihood: High · Very High
- Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security LevelsCAPEC-180likelihood: High · Medium
- Signing Malicious CodeCAPEC-206Very High
- Hijacking a privileged processCAPEC-234Medium
- Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)CAPEC-60likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
- File and Directory DiscoveryT1083
- Access Token Manipulation:Token Impersonation/TheftT1134.001
- Server Software Component: Terminal Services DLLT1505.005
- Abuse Elevation Control MechanismT1548
- Use Alternate Authentication Material:Web Session CookieT1550.004
- Subvert Trust Controls:Code SigningT1553.002
- Compromise Client Software BinaryT1554
- Hijack Execution Flow:Executable Installer File Permissions WeaknessT1574.005
- Hijack Execution Flow: ServicesFile Permissions WeaknessT1574.010
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (3 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.