GitLabApplication
CVE-2017-0924
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 10.2.4 is vulnerable to lack of input validation in the labels 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 10.2.4 lacks input validation in the labels component, allowing attackers to inject malicious scripts that gets stored and executed when other users view the labels - a persistent XSS vulnerability.
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
>= 9.0.0, <= 9.5.10>= 10.0.0, <= 10.1.5>= 10.2.0, <= 10.2.5>= 10.3.0, <= 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.
-
Determine GitLab installation versionRun `sudo gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info` or check the GitLab admin dashboard under /help for the exact version numberAffected if Version falls outside these ranges: 9.0.0-9.5.10, 10.0.0-10.1.5, 10.2.0-10.2.5, 10.3.0-10.3.3
-
Confirm labels feature is accessibleLog into GitLab and navigate to any project, then go to Issues > Labels or go to Project > Labels to access the labels management interfaceAffected if Labels interface is available and users can create or edit labels
-
Check for existing labels in the databaseConnect to the GitLab database (PostgreSQL) and query the labels table: `SELECT name, description FROM labels WHERE description IS NOT NULL;`Affected if Any labels contain unsanitized HTML or script tags in the name or description fields
-
Inspect label renderingCreate a test label with a name containing `<script>alert(1)</script>` and then view it in the labels list or on an issueAffected if The script executes or renders as raw HTML rather than being escaped when viewed by another user
Your GitLab instance is affected if it runs any version between 9.0.0 and 10.3.3 and the labels feature is accessible to users who can create or edit labels.
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 dataImplement proper input validation and output encoding on the labels component to sanitize user-supplied content before storage and before rendering.
Fix this in GitLab
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-0924 — 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-2017-0924 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