CVE-2018-4862
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 · uneditedIn Octopus Deploy versions 3.2.11 - 4.1.5 (fixed in 4.1.6), an authenticated user with ProcessEdit permission could reference an Azure account in such a way as to bypass the scoping restrictions, resulting in a potential escalation of privileges.
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 confidenceIn Octopus Deploy versions 3.2.11 through 4.1.5, an authenticated user with ProcessEdit permission could reference an Azure account in a manner that bypasses configured scoping restrictions, enabling privilege escalation beyond what the user's role should permit.
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>= 3.2.11, <= 4.1.5CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 Octopus Deploy versionLocate the Octopus Deploy server and identify its version number (typically visible in the web UI header or in the server's About/Information page)Affected if The installed version is between 3.2.11 and 4.1.5 inclusive
-
Verify ProcessEdit permission existsIn the Octopus Deploy web interface, navigate to Users or Roles configuration and check if any user role includes the ProcessEdit permissionAffected if Any user account possesses the ProcessEdit permission
-
Identify Azure account configurationsIn the Octopus Deploy infrastructure settings, examine any configured Azure accounts and their scoping restrictions (account tenant or subscription limitations)Affected if Azure accounts are configured with scoping restrictions that should limit access
-
Audit user-role assignments for ProcessEditReview which users are assigned roles containing ProcessEdit permission, particularly those who should have limited scopeAffected if Users with ProcessEdit permission exist alongside Azure accounts with scoping restrictions configured
You are affected if running Octopus Deploy version 3.2.11 through 4.1.5 with users possessing ProcessEdit permission and Azure accounts configured with scoping restrictions that could be bypassed.
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 Octopus Deploy to version 4.1.6 or later. As a compensating control, audit and restrict ProcessEdit permissions to only trusted, necessary users until the upgrade can be completed.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-4862 — 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-2018-4862 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