GitLabApplication
CVE-2020-13275
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 · uneditedA user with an unverified email address could request an access to domain restricted groups in GitLab EE 12.2 and later through 13.0.1
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 confidenceIn GitLab EE 12.2 through 13.0.1, users with unverified email addresses could bypass domain restriction controls on groups by requesting access to those groups. Domain-restricted groups are intended to limit membership to users with email addresses from specific domains, but the access request flow did not properly validate email verification status before processing requests.
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
>= 12.2.0, < 12.9.8>= 12.10.0, < 12.10.7= 13.0.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 your GitLab versionRun 'gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info' or navigate to Admin Area > Overview > Dashboard to see the installed GitLab versionAffected if Version is 12.2.0 to 12.9.7, 12.10.0 to 12.10.6, or 13.0.0 exactly
-
Identify groups with domain restrictions enabledNavigate to each group's Settings > Members page and look for 'Restrict email domains' or 'Domain restriction' settings under group settingsAffected if Any group has domain restrictions configured and your GitLab version is in the affected range
-
Review pending access requests in domain-restricted groupsIn each domain-restricted group, go to Settings > Members and look at the 'Access requests' section to see any pending requestsAffected if There are pending access requests from users with email domains not matching your restrictions
-
Audit members added via access request flowReview group members looking for those who joined via access request rather than direct invitation, and check if their email addresses are unverified in the user profileAffected if Members exist who joined through access requests with unverified email addresses that do not match your domain restrictions
You are affected if your GitLab version is in the vulnerable range AND you have groups with domain restrictions that accepted access requests from users with unverified emails outside your allowed domains
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 data12.9.812.10.7
Upgrade to GitLab 13.0.2 or later. As a workaround, administrators should review pending access requests from unverified email users and consider disabling member invitation requests to domain-restricted groups until patched.
Fix this in GitLab
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-13275 — 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-2020-13275 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