GitLabApplication
CVE-2020-13293
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 GitLab before 13.0.12, 13.1.6 and 13.2.3 using a branch with a hexadecimal name could override an existing hash.
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 GitLab versions prior to 13.0.12, 13.1.6, and 13.2.3, branch names containing hexadecimal characters could be mishandled due to confusion between branch references and commit SHA hashes (which are also hexadecimal). This allowed an attacker to create or manipulate a branch with a hexadecimal name to override or shadow an existing hash reference, potentially leading to reference confusion or redirect attacks.
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
>= 1.0.0, < 13.0.12>= 13.1.0, < 13.1.6>= 13.2.0, < 13.2.3CVSS 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
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
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 GitLab versionRetrieve the installed GitLab version from the instance (typically accessible via the Admin UI under Monitoring, or via command line tools provided by the GitLab installation)Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: >= 1.0.0 and < 13.0.12; >= 13.1.0 and < 13.1.6; >= 13.2.0 and < 13.2.3
-
Enumerate existing branchesList all branches in the GitLab repositories to identify any branch names that consist entirely of hexadecimal characters (0-9, a-f) and are 6 to 40 characters in lengthAffected if Any branch exists with a name that matches the pattern of a hexadecimal string (similar to commit SHA format)
-
Check for shadowed or overridden referencesIf hexadecimal-named branches exist, verify whether references that should point to specific commits are instead resolving to those branches (this may require testing reference resolution or reviewing access logs for unexpected redirects)Affected if References that should resolve to commit SHAs are instead resolving to branches with hexadecimal names, indicating reference confusion
You are affected if your GitLab version is in the vulnerable range AND any branch with a purely hexadecimal name (6-40 characters) exists in your repositories.
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 data13.0.1213.1.613.2.3
Upgrade GitLab to version 13.0.12, 13.1.6, 13.2.3, or later. Additionally, review existing branches with hexadecimal names for potential abuse and implement branch naming policies to prevent future issues.
Fix this in GitLab
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-13293 — 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-2020-13293 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