CVE-2019-13337
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 WESEEK GROWI before 3.5.0, the site-wide basic authentication can be bypassed by adding a URL parameter access_token (this is the parameter used by the API). No valid token is required since it is not validated by the backend. The website can then be browsed as if no basic authentication is required.
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 confidenceWESEEK GROWI before 3.5.0 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability where the access_token URL parameter (intended for API authentication) is not validated by the backend when accessing the web interface. This allows unauthenticated users to bypass site-wide basic authentication by simply appending access_token= to the URL.
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< 3.5.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Determine installed GROWI versionCheck the version by inspecting the package.json file, docker image tag, or the GROWI admin dashboard under System Information. Compare the version number to the affected range (anything below 3.5.0).Affected if The installed version is below 3.5.0.
-
Verify site-wide basic authentication is enabledCheck the GROWI configuration settings. In the admin panel, navigate to Security Settings and confirm if 'Site URL' or 'Basic Auth' settings are configured for site-wide access control.Affected if Site-wide basic authentication is enabled in the GROWI configuration.
-
Inspect access logs for access_token parameter usageReview web server or GROWI access logs for any requests containing 'access_token=' in the URL query string. Search for patterns like '?access_token=' or '&access_token='.Affected if Requests containing the access_token parameter are found in the logs, indicating exploitation attempts.
-
Check if API authentication is configuredExamine the GROWI configuration file (growi_config.js or environment variables) for API token settings. Determine if API authentication tokens have been issued to users.Affected if API authentication tokens exist in the system configuration.
You are affected if GROWI version is below 3.5.0 AND site-wide basic authentication is enabled, regardless of whether exploitation attempts have been observed in logs.
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 data3.5.0
Upgrade to GROWI version 3.5.0 or later, which implements proper validation of the access_token parameter. Until upgraded, monitor access logs for requests containing the access_token parameter.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-13337 — 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-2019-13337 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