CVE-2017-12426
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 (CE) and Enterprise Edition (EE) before 8.17.8, 9.0.x before 9.0.13, 9.1.x before 9.1.10, 9.2.x before 9.2.10, 9.3.x before 9.3.10, and 9.4.x before 9.4.4 might allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted SSH URL in a project import.
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 confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in GitLab's project import feature allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by providing a crafted SSH URL during project import. The vulnerability stems from insufficient validation of the SSH URL which can be leveraged to inject OS commands.
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<= 8.17.7= 9.0.0= 9.0.1= 9.0.2= 9.0.3= 9.0.4= 9.0.5= 9.0.6= 9.0.7= 9.0.8= 9.0.9= 9.0.10CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 or look at the GitLab admin dashboard under Help > VersionAffected if The version is 8.17.7 or lower, OR is 9.0.0 through 9.0.10 inclusive
-
Verify project import feature is enabledCheck GitLab admin settings at Admin Area > Settings > Import sources, or examine the gitlab.yml configuration file for enabled import sourcesAffected if The project import feature is active (it is enabled by default in affected versions)
-
Confirm remote import via SSH URL is permittedReview the Import sources settings to verify that 'Repo by URL' or similar remote import option is available to usersAffected if Remote repository import from arbitrary URLs is allowed
You are affected if your GitLab version falls within 8.17.7 or lower, or 9.0.0 through 9.0.10, AND the project import feature (including remote URL import) is enabled.
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 version 8.17.8, 9.0.13, 9.1.10, 9.2.10, 9.3.10, 9.4.4 or later. Until patched, disable or restrict project import from untrusted sources.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-12426 — 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-2017-12426 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