A flaw was found in Ansible Engine when using Ansible Vault for editing encrypted files. When a user executes "ansible-vault edit", another user on the same computer can read the old and new secret, as it is created in a temporary file with mkstemp and the returned file descriptor is closed and the method write_data is called to write the existing secret in the file. This method will delete the file before recreating it insecurely. All versions in 2.7.x, 2.8.x and 2.9.x branches are believed to be vulnerable.
CVE-2020-1740
“▲” beside the score: it is higher than NVD's CVSS score.
Score 4.7 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: MODERATE) published 2021-04-07. NVD baseline CVSS 3.9; sources differ by 0.8.
Also known asEUVD-2020-0005 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-vcg8-98q8-g7mj (GitHub Security Advisories) · PYSEC-2020-12 (OSV.dev)Source: ENISA EUVD
- Lower severity and no public exploit yet
A fix is available — apply it.
- CVSS v3
- 3.9
- EG Score
- 4.7MEDIUMmedium confidence
- EG Risk
- 21EG Risk 21/100
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.
How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)Severity47% × 45%Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 4.7 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.Exploitation0.4% × 40%FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability0% × 15%CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines. - EPSS PROB
- 0.4%
- EPSS %ILE
- 30th
- KEV
- Not listed
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it
Published
March 16, 2020
Last Modified
November 21, 2024
References (8)
- secalert@redhat · CVE Programhttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2020-1740Issue Tracking · Vendor Advisory
- secalert@redhat · CVE Programhttps://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/67798Issue Tracking · Third Party Advisory
- secalert@redhat · CVE Programhttps://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2020/05/msg00005.htmlMailing List · Third Party Advisory
- secalert@redhat · CVE Programhttps://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DKPA4KC3OJSUFASUYMG66HKJE7ADNGFW/
- secalert@redhat · CVE Programhttps://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MRRYUU5ZBLPBXCYG6CFP35D64NP2UB2S/
- secalert@redhat · CVE Programhttps://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WQVOQD4VAIXXTVQAJKTN7NUGTJFE2PCB/
- secalert@redhat · CVE Programhttps://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202006-11Third Party Advisory
- secalert@redhat · CVE Programhttps://www.debian.org/security/2021/dsa-4950Third Party Advisory
Vendor Advisories for CVE-2020-1740(3)
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
- GHSA-vcg8-98q8-g7mjGitHub Security AdvisoriesMedium
Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor and Insecure Temporary File in Ansible
- RHBA-2020:1539Red Hat Product SecurityCritical
Red Hat Bug Fix Advisory: Red Hat Ansible Tower 3.5.6-1 - RHEL7 Container
- RHBA-2020:0547Red Hat Product SecurityHigh
Red Hat Bug Fix Advisory: Container Image Rebuild for Ansible Tower 3.4 Dependency
Patch Availability(8)
| Vendor / Ecosystem | Fix (by version range) / Patch | Released | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| redhat | ansible-0:2.7.17-1.el7ae | 2020-04-22 | redhat |
| redhat | ansible-0:2.8.11-1.el8ae | 2020-04-22 | redhat |
| redhat | ansible-0:2.9.7-1.el8ae | 2020-04-22 | redhat |
| redhat | ansible-tower-35/ansible-tower:3.5.6-1 | 2020-04-22 | redhat |
| redhat | ansible-tower-37/ansible-tower-memcached-rhel7:1.4.15-28 | 2020-02-18 | redhat |
| pip | ansible @ 2.7.17 (fixes < 2.7.17) | — | ghsa |
| pip | ansible @ 2.8.11 (fixes >= 2.8.0a1, < 2.8.11) | — | ghsa |
| pip | ansible @ 2.9.7 (fixes >= 2.9.0a1, < 2.9.7) | — | ghsa |
Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.
Weakness Classification(2)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Additional Vendor Advisories
(4)
Vendors that published advisories for this CVE beyond the curated set above. Broader coverage but minimal per-row detail — click through for the original advisory.
Related CVEs(same product + same vendor + same CWE)· as of November 12, 2026
Same product
10 shownDebian:8:ansible · Alpine:v3.9:ansible
Same vendor
10 shownredhat:RHBA-2020:0547 · redhat:RHSA-2020:1541
Same CWE
10 shownCWE-200 · CWE-377
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2020-1740?
When was the CVE record for CVE-2020-1740 published?
Is CVE-2020-1740 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2020-1740?
How do I remediate CVE-2020-1740?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2020-1740
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2020-1740?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.