ZulipApplication

CVE-2016-4427

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2022-07-28
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 1.3.12 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
In zulip before 1.3.12, deactivated users could access messages if SSO was enabled.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · high confidence

In Zulip before version 1.3.12, when SSO authentication is enabled, the application fails to properly validate whether a user account has been deactivated during the SSO login process. This allows previously deactivated users to bypass access controls and view messages they should no longer have access to.

MitigationUpgrade to Zulip version 1.3.12 or later, which implements proper validation of user activation status during SSO authentication.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.

NVD · CPE data
ZulipApplication
Affected:< 1.3.12

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Determine installed Zulip version
    Check the Zulip version file or run 'zulip --version' from the Zulip server. On self-hosted installations, look for a VERSION file in the Zulip directory or check the package.json for the version number.
    Affected if The installed version is below 1.3.12
  2. Verify if SSO authentication is enabled
    Examine the Zulip configuration settings (typically in /etc/zulip/settings.py or through the admin interface). Look for authentication backends configuration - specifically check if any SSO provider (such as SAML, LDAP, or OAuth) is listed as an active authentication method.
    Affected if SSO authentication is enabled and the Zulip version is below 1.3.12
  3. Identify deactivated users with access
    Query the Zulip database (PostgreSQL) for user accounts that have 'is_active' set to false but have recent authentication events. Run: SELECT email, date_joined, last_login FROM zerver_userprofile WHERE is_active = false ORDER BY last_login DESC; Compare login timestamps to identify any deactivated users who have logged in after deactivation.
    Affected if There are deactivated user accounts that have authenticated (logged in) after being deactivated, when using SSO authentication

You are affected if Zulip version is below 1.3.12, SSO authentication is enabled, and previously deactivated users have been able to successfully authenticate and access the system.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 1.3.12 or later
Fixed in 1.3.12
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to Zulip version 1.3.12 or later, which implements proper validation of user activation status during SSO authentication.

Recommended fix High confidence

Zulip 1.3.12

  1. Back up the Zulip database and configuration files before proceeding
  2. Stop the Zulip server to prevent data inconsistency during upgrade
  3. Update to Zulip version 1.3.12 or later. For installations using git: 'git pull' and checkout the release tag 1.3.12. For package installations: upgrade via your package manager
  4. Run database migrations: 'python manage.py migrate'
  5. Restart the Zulip server
  6. Verify that deactivated users can no longer access messages when SSO is enabled
Caveat Review release notes for 1.3.12 to check for any breaking changes specific to your configuration; always test upgrades in a staging environment first

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Zulip Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
13.0 hours of engineering $2,330
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,728.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-4427 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2016-4427 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data