CVE-2020-11710
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
An issue was discovered in docker-kong (for Kong) through 2.0.3
rank 35 = 8 + 25 + 0 + 2 + 0
rank@v1 · scheduled
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.33127 · without this subject the record ranks 27
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 9.8, from NVD · without this subject the record ranks 10
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 35
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
1 product in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 33
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 35
$1.65M = $4.99M incident cost x 1 exposure x 0.33127 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
No weakness class or product neighbourhood is held for this record, so this index cannot name anywhere to check next. That is an absence in the record, not a finding about the software.
Check a version against this record
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (needs a Practitioner account)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
AcceptDeferPatch by…Not affectedMitigatedChoose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
What it is stated by the CNA
An issue was discovered in docker-kong (for Kong) through 2.0.3. The admin API port may be accessible on interfaces other than 127.0.0.1. NOTE: The vendor argue that this CVE is not a vulnerability because it has an inaccurate bug scope and patch links. “1) Inaccurate Bug Scope - The issue scope was on Kong's docker-compose template, and not Kong's docker image itself. In reality, this issue is not associated with any version of the Kong gateway. As such, the description stating ‘An issue was discovered in docker-kong (for Kong) through 2.0.3.’ is incorrect. This issue only occurs if a user decided to spin up Kong via docker-compose without following the security documentation. receipt
Read the rest of the CNA's description
The docker-compose template is meant for users to quickly get started with Kong, and is meant for development purposes only. 2) Incorrect Patch Links - The CVE currently points to a documentation improvement as a “Patch” link: https://github.com/Kong/docs.konghq.com/commit/d693827c32144943a2f45abc017c1321b33ff611.This link actually points to an improvement Kong Inc made for fool-proofing. However, instructions for how to protect the admin API were already well-documented here: https://docs.konghq.com/2.0.x/secure-admin-api/#network-layer-access-restrictions , which was first published back in 2017 (as shown in this commit: https://github.com/Kong/docs.konghq.com/commit/e99cf875d875dd84fdb751079ac37882c9972949) Lastly, the hyperlink to https://github.com/Kong/kong (an unrelated Github Repo to this issue) on the Hyperlink list does not include any meaningful information on this topic.
NVD's analysis a second authority
- severity
- 9.8 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- affected versions
- konghq docker-kong <= 2.0.3
check it yourself github.com github.com github.com github.com receipt
Dated events
Movement the material steps
Show all 61 observations
61 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt
The full biography
The record had been public for 6 years, 3 months when this index was last written.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
None. No alias set, and nothing in the corpus cites this identifier or shares its product family within 60 days.
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2020-11710.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.