LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2020-27574: Maxum Rumpus 8.2.13 and 8.2.14 is affected by cross-site request forgery (CSRF).

Maxum Rumpus 8.2.13 and 8.2.14 is affected by cross-site request forgery (CSRF). If an authenticated user visits a malicious page, unintended actions could be performed in the web application as the authenticated user.

UnknownCVSS not scoredNot KEV-listedUpdated
Discuss exposureBack to CVEs
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysismoderate

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

CVE-2020-27574 describes a CSRF issue in Maxum Rumpus 8.2.13 and 8.2.14. A logged-in user who visits a malicious page could unknowingly trigger actions inside Rumpus. The sources do not specify which actions, severity score, or a vendor fix.

Executive priority

Treat this as a targeted exposure-management issue, not an internet-wide emergency based on current evidence. Prioritize if Rumpus supports sensitive file transfer or administration and if privileged users access it from normal browsing workstations.

Technical view

The vulnerability is cross-site request forgery affecting Rumpus 8.2.13 and 8.2.14. The documented condition is an authenticated user visiting attacker-controlled content, causing unintended web application actions under that user's session. No CVSS, CWE, patch details, or exploit confirmation are provided in the source bundle.

Likely exposure

Exposure is limited to organizations running Maxum Rumpus 8.2.13 or 8.2.14 with authenticated web users. Risk depends on what privileges those users have and which state-changing actions are reachable in the application.

Exploitation context

The source bundle does not indicate active exploitation, public weaponization, or CISA KEV listing. Exploitation requires user interaction and an existing authenticated Rumpus session, but the affected action set is not documented here.

Researcher notes

Evidence is thin: the CVE text names CSRF behavior and affected versions, but omits CVSS, CWE, patch status, vulnerable endpoints, and action impact. Do not claim exploitation without additional cited evidence.

Mitigation direction

  • Check Maxum Rumpus vendor guidance for fixed versions or official workarounds.
  • Restrict Rumpus web access to trusted networks, VPN, or administrative users.
  • Reduce standing privileges for Rumpus accounts where operationally possible.
  • Remind privileged users not to browse untrusted sites while authenticated.
  • Monitor Rumpus logs for unexpected administrative or file-management actions.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory Rumpus deployments and identify versions 8.2.13 and 8.2.14.
  • Confirm whether exposed instances require authentication for sensitive workflows.
  • Review session and request handling for CSRF protections on state-changing actions.
  • Check access logs around privileged actions for unusual timing or user reports.
  • Document whether vendor remediation exists before planning upgrade activity.
Prepared
Confidence
medium
Sources
3

Public sources used

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2020-27574 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
Unknown
CVSS
Not scored
Known Exploited
No
Published
Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

0CVSS vectors
3Timeline events
1ADP providers
2Source links

Vulnerability timeline

Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.

  1. CVE reservedCVE Program

    The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.

  2. CVE publishedCVE Program

    The CVE record was published.

  3. CVE updatedCVE Program

    The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.

ADP provider summaries

CVECVE Program Container

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
n/an/an/aListed
Weakness

CWE details

No CWE listed

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.