GitLabApplication
CVE-2020-10079
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 7.10 through 12.8.1 has Incorrect Access Control. Under certain conditions where users should have been required to configure two-factor authentication, it was not being 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 confidenceGitLab versions 7.10 through 12.8.1 contained an incorrect access control vulnerability where two-factor authentication was not being enforced for users under certain conditions where it should have been required, allowing potentially unauthorized access.
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
GitLabApplication
>= 7.10.0, <= 12.8.1CVSS 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:3.1/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 GitLab versionRun `gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info` or check `/opt/gitlab/gitlab-rails/VERSION` to obtain the exact version numberAffected if The version falls within >= 7.10.0 and <= 12.8.1
-
Verify 2FA enforcement settingsNavigate to Admin Area > Settings > General > Sign-up restrictions and check if 'Require two-factor authentication' is enabled, or query the GitLab API endpoint `/api/v4/application/settings` looking for `require_two_factor_authentication`Affected if 2FA enforcement is not enabled or is misconfigured in the instance settings
-
Check external authentication enforcementIn Admin Area > Settings > General > External authorization, verify if external authentication is enforced via SAML, OIDC, or similar. If enabled alongside certain configurations, 2FA requirements could be bypassed.Affected if External authentication is enabled without proper 2FA policy inheritance from the external provider
-
Inspect 2FA policy scopeReview admin user lists in Admin Area > Overview > Users and filter or check user accounts for 2FA status. Identify users who should have 2FA required but do not have it enabled.Affected if Users exist who should be subject to 2FA requirements but have bypassed or missing 2FA enforcement
You are affected if your GitLab version is between 7.10.0 and 12.8.1 AND you rely on 2FA enforcement but have users or conditions where 2FA is not being properly required.
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 to GitLab 12.8.2 or later (or a currently supported version), and verify that 2FA policies are properly configured and enforced across the instance.
Fix this in GitLab
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 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 $2,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-10079 — 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-2020-10079 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