CVE-2020-25688: A flaw was found in rhacm versions before 2.0.5 and before 2.1.0.
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 14/100)
- 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: 0.25% (FIRST EPSS).
- Someone on the same network segment can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
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 rhacm versions before 2.0.5 and before 2.1.0. Two internal service APIs were incorrectly provisioned using a test certificate from the source repository. This would result in all installations using the same certificates. If an attacker could observe network traffic internal to a cluster, they could use the private key to decode API requests that should be protected by TLS sessions, potentially obtaining information they would not otherwise be able to. These certificates are not used for service authentication, so no opportunity for impersonation or active MITM attacks were made possible.
- Published
- Nov 23, 2020
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.2% · 16th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-321
Report tools
Action score
14
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 14 / 40 · 3.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.2%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
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 | advanced cluster management for kubernetes | cpe:2.3:a:redhat:advanced_cluster_management_for_kubernetes |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- redhat advanced cluster management for kubernetesbefore 2.0.5
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.
n/a rhacm
- All rhacm versions before 2.0.5 and before 2.1.0affected
Same product
redhat: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-4740Rhacm: open cluster management (ocm): cross-cluster privilege escalation via improper kubernetes client certificate renewal validation32Monitor
- CVE-2023-3027The grc-policy-propagator allows security escalation within the cluster.31Monitor
- CVE-2022-3841RHACM: unauthenticated SSRF in console API endpoint.31Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-25655Nov 9, 2020 · An issue was discovered in ManagedClusterView API, that could allow secrets to be disclosed to users without the correct permissions.26Monitor
- Later →CVE-2022-2238Sep 1, 2022 · A vulnerability was found in the search-api container in Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes when a query in the search filte26Monitor
- Later →CVE-2022-3248Oct 5, 2023 · Openshift api admission checks does not enforce "custom-host" permissions30Monitor
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.
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 on the same network segment 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
- Adjacent
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- Low
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-321 · Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic KeyCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/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.
MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.
Change 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.