CVE-2020-13845

mediumpriority · track · 30EPSS 0.005 · 43 %ileEUUS
grimoire priorityP3 · Track
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.52% (43rd) EPSS
CVSS 5 · medium
Is it mine?
3 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
4 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · nvd · osv

EPSS · scored 2026-10-22

Sylabs Singularity 3.0 through 3.5 has Improper Validation of an Integrity Check Value. Image integrity is not validated when an ECL policy is enforced. The fingerprint required by the ECL is compared against the signature object descriptor(s) in the SIF file, rather than to a cryptographically validated signature.

01

cvss

Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.

7.5
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode⚠ sources disagree · medium–high · 5–7.5

v2.05mediumAV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:Nprimary · NVD / NIST USexploitability 10 · impact 2.9
v3.17.5highCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:Nprimary · NVD / NIST USexploitability 3.9 · impact 3.6
v3.17.5highCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:Nsecondary · OSV
v3.16.9mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N/E:Usecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

03

affected products (3)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

04

advisories (1)

Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.

  • GHSA-pmfr-63c2-jr5cExecution Control List (ECL) Is Insecure in Singularity2021-12-20ghsa · osvUS

    ### Impact The Singularity Execution Control List (ECL) allows system administrators to set up a policy that defines rules about what signature(s) must be (or must not be) present on a SIF container image for it to be permitted to run. In Singularity 3.x versions below 3.6.0, the following issues allow the ECL to be bypassed by a malicious user: * Image integrity is not validated when an ECL policy is enforced. * The fingerprint required by the ECL is compared against the signature object descriptor(s) in the SIF file, rather than to a cryptographically validated signature. Thus, it is trivial to craft an arbitrary payload which will be permitted to run, even if the attacker does not have access to the private key associated with the fingerprint(s) configured in the ECL. ### Patches These issues are addressed in Singularity 3.6.0. All users are advised to upgrade to 3.6.0. Note that Singularity 3.6.0 uses a new signature format that is necessarily incompatible with Singularity < 3.6.0 - e.g. Singularity 3.5.3 cannot verify containers signed by 3.6.0. Version 3.6.0 includes a `legacyinsecure` option that can be set to `legacyinsecure = true` in `ecl.toml` to allow the ECL to perform verification of the older, and insecure, legacy signatures for compatibility with existing containers. This does not guarantee that containers have not been modified since signing, due to other issues in the legacy signature format. The option should be used only to temporarily ease the transition to containers signed with the new 3.6.0 signature format. ### Workarounds This issue affects any installation of Singularity configured to use the Execution Control List (ECL) functionality. There is no workaround if ECL is required. ### For more information General questions about the impact of the advisory / changes made in the 3.6.0 release can be asked in the: * [Singularity Slack Channel](https://bit.ly/2m0g3lX) * [Singularity Mailing List](https://groups.google.com/a/lbl.gov/forum/??sdf%7Csort:date#!forum/singularity) Any sensitive security concerns should be directed to: security@sylabs.io See our Security Policy here: https://sylabs.io/security-policy

05

also known as (3)

Other names and identifiers for this entity.

06

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

published 2020-07-14modified 2026-06-17
08

references (17)

External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.

scry

Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.

Free scan