CVE-2020-0688
Auth Bypass in Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 … 2019
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2020-0688 is a high-severity Improper Authentication (CWE-287) vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange Server. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.0% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2020-0688 is a remote code execution vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange software that arises when the product fails to properly handle objects in memory, resulting in memory corruption. It is tracked under CWE-287 and carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.8 reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, and low privileges required.
An authenticated attacker with low privileges can exploit the flaw remotely and without user interaction to achieve arbitrary code execution with full confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact on the affected Exchange server. Publicly available proof-of-concept code demonstrates the issue through the Exchange Control Panel by leveraging viewstate deserialization.
The Microsoft Security Response Center advisory at portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-US/security-guidance/advisory/CVE-2020-0688 supplies patch information and mitigation guidance, while additional technical analysis is published by the Zero Day Initiative under ZDI-20-258.
Multiple working exploits targeting Exchange 2019 builds such as 15.2.221.12 have been released on Packet Storm Security.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2020-2181
Vulnerability Data
A remote code execution vulnerability exists in Microsoft Exchange software when the software fails to properly handle objects in memory, aka 'Microsoft Exchange Memory Corruption Vulnerability'.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 03 November 2021
Related Threats
Threat-Actor AttributionAI
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Detects unauthorized successful logons resulting from improper authentication implementations.
Documented procedures ensure personnel are trained on authentication mechanisms, tangibly lowering the risk of improper authentication being exploited.
Security awareness training instructs users on secure authentication practices and avoiding credential compromise.
Training on authentication mechanisms and best practices decreases the occurrence of improper authentication.
Non-repudiation requires strong authentication mechanisms to irrefutably attribute performed actions to specific individuals or processes.
Session content review can reveal authentication bypasses or failures in session establishment.
Review of authentication-related audit records can detect improper authentication mechanisms or bypasses.
Assessments check authentication mechanisms for correct implementation and effectiveness, reducing successful authentication bypass attempts.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Mandating segregated approval and oversight for non-human identities reduces the chance that weak or orphaned credentials can be exploited for unauthorized authentication.
A.5.17 directly mandates generation of non-guessable unique secrets, secure transmission, immediate change of defaults/temporary creds, strong password enforcement, no-reuse, and compromise response, which stops most improper-authentication exploits at source; the bounded remainder is non-password authentication methods and sufficiency-of-proof cases (e.g. IA-2/IA-5 enhancements) left to other controls.
Security requirements specified early and verified through testing drive the consistent implementation of authentication mechanisms, decreasing the likelihood that authentication steps are omitted or incorrectly applied.
A.8.26 explicitly requires identifying and addressing authentication-related requirements (including level of trust in identity via 8.5 and 5.17) as part of application development or acquisition, which prevents a slice of CWE-287 but leaves the dominant sufficiency-of-proof aspects (IA-2/IA-5) and many implementation defects untouched.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (least privilege, default-deny, never-trust/always-verify, MFA, end-to-end encryption of requests, distrust-external-input, secure session control, and explicit authentication/authorization in every layer), which directly stops most improper-authentication flaws from being exploitable; the bounded remainder is insufficient-proof cases that live only in the strength or correctness of the credential itself (IA-5/IA-2 territory).
A.8.5 directly mandates appropriate-strength authentication techniques, MFA for critical systems, protected log-on procedures, brute-force resistance, no cleartext passwords/transmission, and session controls that stop exploitation of insufficient proof of identity; the bounded remainder is cases where the chosen technique itself is flawed or insufficiently implemented (e.g. weak biometrics without fallback).
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.