CVE-2020-15134
CVE-2020-15134 — Missing TLS certificate verification in Faye
Faye before version 1.4.0, there is a lack of certification validation in TLS handshakes. Faye uses em-http-request and faye-websocket in the Ruby version of its client. Those libraries both use the `EM::Connection#start_tls` method in EventMachine to implement the TLS handshake whenever a `wss:` URL is used for the connection. This method does not implement certificate verification by default, meaning that it does not check that the server presents a valid and trusted TLS certificate for the expected hostname. That means that any `https:` or `wss:` connection made using these libraries is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack, since it does not confirm the identity of the server it is connected to. The first request a Faye client makes is always sent via normal HTTP, but later messages may be sent via WebSocket. Therefore it is vulnerable to the same problem that these underlying…
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Unreported
no source claims exploitation
EPSS
1%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
8
HIGH
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
Vendors (1)
Products (1)
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | CVSS 3.1 | HIGH | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-295
References
2 on the record
- github.com/faye/faye/security/advisories/GHSA-3q49-h8f9-9fr9
x_refsource_CONFIRM
- blog.jcoglan.com/2020/07/31/missing-tls-verification-in-faye/
x_refsource_MISC
Elsewhere on this site
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.