CVE-2021-47987
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 · uneditedParse Server before 4.10.0 was affected by a supply chain incident in which incorrect version tags were pushed to the official repository pointing to an unreviewed personal fork of a contributor with write access. No releases were published with these tags; a project was exposed only if it defined a git-based dependency referencing one of the affected tags (for example, parse-server#4.9.3). The code behind the tags was not reviewed or approved, and although no malicious code was identified, the introduction of security vulnerabilities could not be ruled out.
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 confidenceParse Server before 4.10.0 experienced a supply chain incident where unauthorized version tags were pushed to the official repository, pointing to an unreviewed personal fork from a contributor with write access. Projects using git-based dependencies referencing these affected tags (e.g., parse-server#4.9.3) may have incorporated unvetted code. While no malicious code was confirmed, the introduction of security vulnerabilities could not be ruled out.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 Parse Server dependency in package.jsonInspect the project's package.json file and locate any entry for 'parse-server' in the dependencies or devDependencies objectAffected if parse-server is listed as a dependency
-
Determine if using git-based dependencyCheck if the parse-server dependency uses a git URL, github shorthand, or has a 'from' field pointing to a git repository instead of a version numberAffected if The dependency uses git-based installation (e.g., git://, https://git..., github:owner/repo, or a 'from' field with a git URL)
-
Extract the git reference being usedFor git-based dependencies, note the specific tag, branch, or commit hash referenced (e.g., after the # symbol in 'parse-server#4.9.3' or in the 'resolved' or 'from' fields)Affected if A specific git reference (tag or branch) is declared
-
Verify the source repositoryExamine the git URL or github shorthand to determine if it points to the official parse-server repository (typically 'parsecommunity/parse-server') or an alternative sourceAffected if The source is not the official parse-server repository or uses an unofficial tag reference
-
Compare referenced version to affected rangeIf using an official tag, compare it to the affected versions (before 4.10.0). Note that some tags in the affected range may have been pushed as part of the supply chain incidentAffected if The referenced version is 4.10.0 or later from official releases, or if using git-based dependency with affected tags before 4.10.0
A user is affected if their project uses a git-based dependency reference to Parse Server versions before 4.10.0, particularly if the reference points to tags that were pushed during the unauthorized incident.
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.
dbcve · scopedReview all dependency configurations to identify and remove any git-based dependencies referencing the affected Parse Server tags, then update to version 4.10.0 or later from official release channels.
Parse Server 4.10.0 or later (official npm release)
- Audit your project's dependency configuration (package.json, package-lock.json, or equivalent) to check if parse-server is referenced as a git-based dependency (e.g., 'parse-server#4.9.3' or similar tag-based git URLs)
- If git-based dependencies to parse-server are found, remove them from your dependency configuration
- Update your parse-server dependency to use the official released version 4.10.0 or later (e.g., 'npm install parse-server@^4.10.0' or equivalent package manager command)
- Reinstall dependencies to ensure the official released version is installed
- Verify the installed parse-server version matches the intended stable release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-47987 — 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-2021-47987 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