GitLabApplication
CVE-2021-22199
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 · uneditedAn issue has been discovered in GitLab affecting all versions starting with 12.9. GitLab was vulnerable to a stored XSS if scoped labels were used.
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 12.9 and later are vulnerable to stored XSS when scoped labels are used. An attacker can inject malicious JavaScript through label names that executes in the browsers of other users viewing those labels.
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
>= 12.9, < 13.8.7>= 13.9.0, < 13.9.5>= 13.10.0, < 13.10.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/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.
-
Determine installed GitLab versionRun 'gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info' or check the GitLab admin area under /admin/application_settings or the Help section in the UI to find the exact version numberAffected if The version number falls within these ranges: 12.9 to 13.8.6, 13.9.0 to 13.9.4, or 13.10.0
-
Confirm scoped labels feature is accessibleNavigate to a project's Issues or Merge Requests settings, then to Labels section, and verify you can create a new labelAffected if Scoped label creation is available to the user checking (users with create label permissions)
-
Check for existing scoped labels in projectsGo to any project, open Labels (or Issues > Labels), and look for labels containing double-colon syntax (e.g., 'label::name') which indicates scoped labelsAffected if Scoped labels exist in the GitLab instance and were created by potentially untrusted users
You are affected if your GitLab version is 12.9 through 13.8.6, 13.9.0 through 13.9.4, or 13.10.0, and scoped labels are accessible to users who could inject malicious label names.
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 data13.8.713.9.513.10.1
Upgrade GitLab to the latest patched version. Until then, restrict or disable scoped label creation for untrusted users.
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-2021-22199 — 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-2021-22199 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