🎯 CVE-2020-15134 HIGH 8.0 🔥 EPSS 86% 🧪 PoC 🇪🇺 EUVD
📄 .md Alle CVEs anzeigen ✕

CVE-2020-15134 | 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 a

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 libraries are, and we needed both libraries to support TLS verification before Faye could claim to do the same. Your client would still be insecure if its initial HTTPS request was verified, but later WebSocket connections were not. This is fixed in Faye v1.4.0, which enables verification by default. For further background information on this issue, please see the referenced GitHub Advisory.

Klassifikation & Betroffenheit:
faye Faye < 1.4.0faye_project faye *
Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') 🎯 Medium

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

🛡️ Empfohlene Mitigation: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Vollständige Definition bei MITRE ➔
🩹 Patch verfügbar (OSV):
🩹 60141e8d3942a88ba3de6a9b3aef9503bc1bb1e6 (Commit)
📚 Referenzen & Quellen:
Ausnutzungs-Zeitleiste:
CVSS-Vektor-Analyse: 8.0
AV · Angriffsvektor Netzwerk
AC · Komplexität Hoch
PR · Privilegien Keine
UI · Interaktion Erforderlich
S · Scope Verändert
C · Vertraulichkeit Hoch
I · Integrität Hoch
A · Verfügbarkeit Keine
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Veröffentlicht:31.07.2020
Aktualisiert:17.06.2026 02:56
Assigner (CNA):GitHub_M
EUVD-ID:EUVD-2020-0532
Quellen: 🇪🇺 EUVD-Datenbank (ENISA) + 🇺🇸 NVD-Anreicherung · 24-h-Cache
CWE-94: Code Injection ✓ Offizieller Patch / Advisory verfügbar
💡 Gegenmaßnahme: Sicherheits-Update des Herstellers zeitnah einspielen und Netzwerksegmentierung prüfen.
🔴 Live Security Advisory & EPSS Exploit Radar

Zero-Day & Vulnerability Intelligence Hub

Echtzeit-Tracking mit EPSS Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeiten, Angriffsvektor-Decodern und KI-Patch-Anleitungen.

354k+ 🇪🇺 EUVD-Datenbank
0 🔴 Critical im Radar
0 ⚠️ CISA KEV
0 🔓 Aktiv ausgenutzt
1 🧪 PoC verfügbar
📊 Historien-Charts — Criticals-Trend · Vendors · EPSS-Verteilung
🔴 Criticals pro Monat (12 M) 2025-09: 163 2025-10: 316 2025-11: 257 2025-12: 426 2026-01: 431 2026-02: 418 2026-03: 652 2026-04: 574 2026-05: 683 2026-06: 942 2026-07: 1333 2026-08: 1329 7.524 Criticals gesamt
🏢 Top-Vendor-Veröffentlichungen (6 M) Adobe Apple Google Linux Microsoft Oracle Corporation
● Adobe ● Apple ● Google ● Linux ● Microsoft ● Oracle
📈 EPSS-Verteilung (Messungen)
Tier2026-08-292026-09-14
≥90 %40
≥50 %40
≥10 %30
<10 %304300
📈 EPSS-Riser (7 Tage) CVE-2022-2900 ↑ 0.2 %
Frühindikator · FIRST.org
Datenquellen & Methodik: Primärquelle ist die EUVD der ENISA (laufender Datenbank-Sync, alle 15 Minuten), abgeglichen mit dem CISA-KEV-Katalog und der NVD — Detail-Dossiers reichern fehlende Felder live per NVD an — mit Fallback auf CIRCL vulnerability-lookup (EU/Non-Profit, aggregiert CVE-, GitHub- und OSV-Advisories). Der CISA-KEV-Katalog (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities, ~1.700 aktiv ausgenutzte Schwachstellen) wird bei jedem Sync vollständig neu geladen und kreuzreferenziert — filterbar über die KEV-Pille. CVSS 3.1 wird nach Ampel-Logik aus Verteidigersicht dekodiert; EPSS bezeichnet die 30-Tage-Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeit (FIRST.org).
🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD 🇺🇸 NVD ⚠️ CISA KEV ⚡ EPSS
Ökosystem & Hersteller Bedrohungs-Matrix:
Schweregrad & Status:
Hersteller (Datenbank-weit, 90.597 Einträge):
Quelle:
Schwachstellen-Kategorie (CWE):
🔍
8.0 HIGH
🇪🇺 EUVD
EPSS 86%
CVE-2020-15134 🌐 Netzwerk (Remote) 🔓 Keine Authentifizierung nötig
🧪 faye

CVE-2020-15134 | 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 a

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 Even

CWE-94: Code Injection ✓ Offizieller Patch / Advisory verfügbar
💡 Gegenmaßnahme: Sicherheits-Update des Herstellers zeitnah einspielen und Netzwerksegmentierung prüfen.