GitLabApplication
CVE-2017-0923
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 9.1 is vulnerable to lack of input validation in the IPython notebooks component resulting in persistent cross site scripting.
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 · moderate confidenceGitLab Community Edition 9.1 contains a persistent cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the IPython notebooks component due to lack of input validation. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript through notebook content that executes when other users view the affected notebook.
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
= 9.5.10= 10.1.5= 10.2.5= 10.3.3CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Check installed GitLab versionRun `gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info` or access the Admin Area > Dashboard and locate the GitLab version numberAffected if The version displayed matches 9.5.10, 10.1.5, 10.2.5, or 10.3.3 exactly
-
Verify IPython notebook feature is accessibleLog into GitLab as an administrator and navigate to a project containing .ipynb files, or check if the notebook viewer is enabled in the admin settings under "Repository" or "File Viewer" settingsAffected if The IPython notebook viewer renders files and is accessible to users in the GitLab instance
-
Check for presence of .ipynb files in projectsUse the GitLab search or API to find projects containing .ipynb notebook files: `curl --header "PRIVATE-TOKEN: <token>" "https://gitlab.example.com/api/v4/search?scope=blobs&search=.ipynb"`Affected if Any .ipynb files exist in the GitLab repositories and can be viewed through the web interface
-
Inspect notebook content renderingOpen a stored .ipynb file through the GitLab web interface and view the rendered output, checking if the content is sanitized before displayAffected if The notebook renders without visible sanitization or displays raw cell content that could contain script tags
You are affected if your GitLab version is exactly 9.5.10, 10.1.5, 10.2.5, or 10.3.3 AND the IPython notebook viewer feature is enabled with .ipynb files present in your repositories.
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 to a patched version (9.2 or later) and implement proper input validation/sanitization on all notebook content before rendering.
Fix this in GitLab
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-0923 — 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-2017-0923 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