GitLabApplication
CVE-2017-0925
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 Enterprise Edition version 10.1.0 is vulnerable to an insufficiently protected credential issue in the project service integration API endpoint resulting in an information disclosure of plaintext password.
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 Enterprise Edition 10.1.0 contains an API endpoint for project service integrations that returns plaintext passwords in API responses instead of masking or redacting them, allowing authenticated users to retrieve sensitive credentials.
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
>= 8.0.0, <= 9.5.10>= 10.0.0, <= 10.1.5>= 10.2.0, <= 10.2.5>= 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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.
-
Check installed GitLab versionRun `gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info` or check `/opt/gitlab/version` to obtain the exact GitLab version installedAffected if The installed version falls within 8.0.0 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
-
Identify project service integrations configuredQuery the GitLab API endpoint for project services, typically `GET /projects/:id/services` using an authenticated API token or check via the web UI at Project > Settings > IntegrationsAffected if Any project has service integrations (e.g., Jenkins, GitHub, Slack, email) configured with stored credentials
-
Verify if credentials are returned in plaintextMake an authenticated API request to the services endpoint and inspect the response JSON for unredacted password fields (e.g., `password`, `token`, `secret` fields appearing as plain text rather than masked values)Affected if The API response contains plaintext passwords or API tokens in the service configuration data rather than masked or redacted values
A user is affected if their GitLab version is within the vulnerable ranges AND they have service integrations configured that expose credentials in plaintext API responses.
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 the patched version that properly redacts credentials in API responses. Audit and rotate any credentials that may have been exposed.
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-2017-0925 — 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-2017-0925 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