CrucibleApplication · Atlassian
CVE-2017-18095
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 · uneditedThe SnippetRPCServiceImpl class in Atlassian Crucible before version 4.5.1 (the fixed version 4.5.x) and before 4.6.0 allows remote attackers to comment on snippets they do not have authorization to access via an improper authorization vulnerability.
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 confidenceThe SnippetRPCServiceImpl class in Atlassian Crucible contains an improper authorization vulnerability that allows remote attackers to comment on snippets they do not have permission to access. This is a broken access control issue where the service fails to properly validate user authorization before allowing comment operations on snippets.
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
CrucibleApplication
< 4.5.1CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Identify installed Atlassian Crucible versionCheck the Crucible application version through the admin UI (Administration > System > System Info) or by inspecting the installed JAR files or version file in the Crucible installation directoryAffected if Version is below 4.5.1 (e.g., 4.5.0, 4.4.x, earlier versions)
-
Confirm Snippet feature is enabledVerify that the Snippet review functionality is enabled in Crucible. Check in Administration > Plugins or Feature Flags to see if Snippet reviews are activeAffected if Snippets are enabled and the SnippetRPCService is accessible to users
-
Review snippet comment access logsExamine Crucible audit logs or application logs for comment operations on snippets. Look for comments made by users on snippets they should not have access to based on project/repo permissionsAffected if There are comment entries in logs where users commented on snippets outside their granted permissions
-
Check user permissions on snippet resourcesIn the admin UI, review which users/groups have access to snippet resources and verify that the permission model aligns with expected access controlsAffected if Users without explicit snippet permissions are able to perform comment operations
User is affected if Atlassian Crucible version is below 4.5.1 and the SnippetRPCService allows unauthorized comment operations on snippets.
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 data4.5.1
Upgrade Atlassian Crucible to version 4.5.1 or later (for 4.5.x users), or to version 4.6.0 or later to resolve the improper authorization vulnerability in SnippetRPCServiceImpl.
Fix this in Crucible
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-2017-18095 — 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-2017-18095 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