Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2017-0369
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 · uneditedMediawiki before 1.28.1 / 1.27.2 / 1.23.16 contains a flaw, allowing a sysops to undelete pages, although the page is protected against it.
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 confidenceMediaWiki before versions 1.28.1/1.27.2/1.23.16 contains an access control bypass where sysops (administrators) can undelete pages that have been protected against undeletion, allowing privileged users to bypass page protection restrictions.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 7.0>= 1.23.0, <= 1.23.16>= 1.27.0, < 1.27.2>= 1.28.0, < 1.28.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed MediaWiki versionCheck the version file in your MediaWiki installation (e.g., includes/DefaultSettings.php or the Special:Version page in the web interface) and note the version numberAffected if The version is 1.23.0 through 1.23.16, 1.27.0 through 1.27.1, or 1.28.0 through 1.28.0 (any version in the ranges >=1.23.0,<=1.23.16; >=1.27.0,<1.27.2; >=1.28.0,<1.28.1)
-
Review page protection settingsQuery the database or check Special:Protect in MediaWiki to list pages that have protection against deletion or undeletion (protection level that includes 'delete' or 'undelete' restrictions)Affected if Any pages exist with explicit protection against undeletion in your wiki
-
Examine undeletion logs for protected pagesCheck the deletion log (Special:Log/delete) and look for undeletion events on pages that were protected against undeletionAffected if There are log entries showing undeletion was performed on pages that had protection against undeletion
-
Verify sysop account existenceCheck if there are any sysop (administrator) accounts configured in your MediaWiki installation via Special:ListUsers or database queryAffected if Sysop accounts exist in the system, as this is the user group that could exploit the vulnerability
Your environment is affected if MediaWiki version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND your wiki has pages protected against undeletion AND sysop accounts exist, since this allows privileged users to bypass the undeletion protection.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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.
From vendor data1.27.21.28.1
Upgrade MediaWiki to version 1.28.1, 1.27.2, 1.23.16 or later to patch this access control bypass vulnerability.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-0369 — 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 sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-0369 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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