CVE-2018-20301
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Steve Pallen Coherence before 0.5.2 that is similar to a Mass Assignment vulnerability. In particular, "registration" endpoints (e.g., creating, editing, updating) allow users to update any coherence_fields data. For example, users can automatically confirm their accounts by sending the confirmed_at parameter with their registration request.
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 confidenceA mass assignment vulnerability in Coherence gem versions before 0.5.2 allows attackers to modify restricted fields via registration endpoints. By sending parameters like confirmed_at in registration requests, users can automatically confirm their accounts without proper authorization, bypassing the intended confirmation workflow.
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< 0.5.2CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 Coherence gem versionRun `gem list coherence` or check your Gemfile.lock for the coherence gem versionAffected if Version is below 0.5.2
-
Verify registration endpoint is activeInspect your routes.rb for `coherence_for :registrations` or check if the /registrations route existsAffected if Registration route is mounted and accessible
-
Inspect user model for mass assignment protectionExamine your Coherence user model for `attr_accessible` or `attr_protected` declarations, and check for `mass_assignment_authorizer` in the modelAffected if Model lacks proper attr_accessible/attr_protected restrictions or uses :role, :admin, or :confirmed_at as accessible attributes
-
Check registration controller for strong parametersReview the registrations controller (typically in app/controllers/coherence/registrations_controller.rb) for parameter filtering - look for `permit` calls in the registration create/update methodsAffected if The controller does not explicitly whitelist allowed fields or fails to exclude sensitive fields like confirmed_at, confirmed_at, role, or admin flags
Your environment is affected if Coherence gem version is below 0.5.2 AND registration is enabled AND sensitive fields are not explicitly excluded from mass assignment in the model or controller.
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 data0.5.2
Implement strong parameter filtering to whitelist only allowed fields during registration and explicitly exclude sensitive coherence_fields such as confirmed_at, confirmed_at, role, or admin flags.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-20301 — 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-2018-20301 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