CVE-2020-28918VulnerabilityPublished 16 Feb 2021Updated 30 May 2025

CVE-2020-28918: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 64% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AC:L/AV:N/A:N/C:L/I:N/PR:N/S:U/UI:N

Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Vector: Network
Availability: None
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Privileges Required: None
Scope: Unchanged
User Interaction: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Feb 2021
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2020-28918, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Apply any available patches or updates from the vendor as soon as they are released. 2) Modify the login interface to provide generic error messages that do not differentiate between valid and invalid usernames, such as "Invalid username or password," to prevent username enumeration. 3) Implement rate limiting and account lockout policies to hinder automated username enumeration attempts. 4) Deploy web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect and block enumeration patterns on login forms. 5) Monitor authentication logs for unusual patterns indicative of enumeration or brute force attempts and trigger alerts for investigation. 6) Educate users and administrators about the risks of username enumeration and encourage strong, unique passwords combined with MFA. 7) Consider additional protective controls such as CAPTCHA challenges on login forms to reduce automated attacks. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on eliminating information leakage and detecting exploitation attempts.

Description

DualShield 5.9.8.0821 allows username enumeration on its login form. A valid username results in prompting for the password, whereas an invalid one will produce an "unknown username" error message.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability lies primarily in the increased risk of credential-based attacks. Organizations using DualShield 5.9.8.0821 for MFA protection could have their user databases partially exposed through username enumeration. Attackers can leverage this information to launch focused password spraying or brute force attacks, potentially leading to unauthorized access if weak or reused passwords are present. This is particularly critical for sectors with high-value targets such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure, where unauthorized access could lead to data breaches, operational disruption, or regulatory non-compliance under GDPR. While the vulnerability does not directly allow bypassing authentication or compromising system integrity, it weakens the first line of defense by revealing valid usernames. This can also facilitate phishing or social engineering attacks tailored to known users. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk, but the ease of exploitation and the public disclosure of the vulnerability mean that attackers could develop automated tools to exploit it. European organizations should consider this vulnerability as a risk multiplier that can aid attackers in reconnaissance and initial access phases.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jul 2025, 15:13 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats