GitLabApplication
CVE-2017-0918
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 · uneditedGitlab Community Edition version 10.3 is vulnerable to a path traversal issue in the GitLab CI runner component resulting in remote code execution.
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 confidenceGitLab Community Edition 10.3 contains a path traversal vulnerability in the CI runner component that allows attackers to escape the intended sandbox and execute arbitrary code on the runner host. The vulnerability stems from insufficient validation of file paths in build artifact handling, enabling remote code execution with the privileges of the CI runner process.
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
GitLabApplication
>= 8.4.0, <= 9.5.10>= 10.0.0, <= 10.1.5>= 10.0.0, <= 10.1.15> 10.2.0, <= 10.2.5>= 10.2.0, <= 10.2.5> 10.3.0, <= 10.3.3>= 10.3.0, <= 10.3.3
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 9.0CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 the installed GitLab versionRun `gitlab-ctl version` or check `/opt/gitlab/version` to determine the installed GitLab Community Edition version numberAffected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: 8.4.0 to 9.5.10, 10.0.0 to 10.1.5, 10.2.0 to 10.2.5, or 10.3.0 to 10.3.3
-
Confirm the CI runner component is enabledCheck if GitLab CI is active by accessing the GitLab admin area under Runners or inspecting the gitlab.rb configuration file for runner-related settingsAffected if CI runners are registered and active within the GitLab instance
-
Verify runner has artifact download accessReview the runner configuration and project settings to confirm the runner is configured to handle build artifacts and has network access to the GitLab instanceAffected if The runner can download or process build artifacts from pipeline jobs
-
Check runner execution privilegesExamine the process user running the CI runner (typically gitlab-runner) and verify what file system permissions the runner process possessesAffected if The runner executes with elevated privileges or has write access to sensitive host directories
You are affected if your GitLab version is within the vulnerable ranges AND the CI runner component is enabled and can process build artifacts.
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 dataUpgrade GitLab Community Edition to version 10.4 or later which contains the patched CI runner. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict CI runner access to trusted users and networks while planning the upgrade.
Fix this in GitLab
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-0918 — 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-2017-0918 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