GitLabApplication
CVE-2020-13294
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, access grants were not revoked when a user revoked access to an application.
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 before 13.0.12, 13.1.6 and 13.2.3, when a user attempted to revoke an application's access through the UI, the OAuth access grants were not properly invalidated. This allowed applications to continue accessing user resources even after the user believed they had revoked 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
>= 7.7.0, < 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.
-
Check GitLab versionNavigate to the GitLab Admin Area (Admin > Overview > Dashboard) or check the /help page. Alternatively, run `gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info` on the server to see the exact version.Affected if The installed version is before 13.0.12, between 13.1.0-13.1.5, or between 13.2.0-13.2.2.
-
Verify OAuth Applications feature is in useGo to User Settings > Applications in the GitLab UI to see if any OAuth applications have been authorized. Check the 'Authorized applications' list.Affected if OAuth applications have been authorized and the GitLab version is in the affected range.
-
Inspect active OAuth access tokensAs an administrator, query the database table `oauth_access_tokens` to list currently active access tokens, or use the API endpoint `GET /oauth/authorized_tokens` (with appropriate permissions) to see active sessions.Affected if Active access tokens exist for applications that users may have attempted to revoke.
-
Compare revocation timestamps with token creationReview the `oauth_access_tokens` table timestamps. Identify tokens created before a user's revocation action but still showing 'active' status after the revocation attempt.Affected if Tokens remain active after users have attempted to revoke access through the UI.
You are affected if your GitLab version falls within 7.7.0 to 13.0.11, 13.1.0 to 13.1.5, or 13.2.0 to 13.2.2 AND OAuth applications have been authorized that users attempted to revoke.
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. After upgrading, verify that application access revocation now properly terminates active OAuth sessions.
Fix this in GitLab
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-13294 — 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-2020-13294 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