CVE-2022-21706
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 · uneditedZulip is an open-source team collaboration tool with topic-based threading. Zulip Server version 2.0.0 and above are vulnerable to insufficient access control with multi-use invitations. A Zulip Server deployment which hosts multiple organizations is vulnerable to an attack where an invitation created in one organization (potentially as a role with elevated permissions) can be used to join any other organization. This bypasses any restrictions on required domains on users' email addresses, may be used to gain access to organizations which are only accessible by invitation, and may be used to gain access with elevated privileges. This issue has been patched in release 4.10. There are no known workarounds for this issue. ### Patches _Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?_ ### Workarounds _Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?_ ### References _Are there any links users can visit to find out more?_ ### For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, you can discuss them on the [developer community Zulip server](https://zulip.com/developer-community/), or email the [Zulip security team](mailto:[email protected]).
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 analysisThe application fails to correctly restrict what a user can do or reach, so functions or resources are available to people who should not have them. Attackers simply probe for the paths where the check is missing or wrong. The fix is to enforce access-control decisions consistently on every request, evaluated against the acting user rather than assumed from context.
General guidance for the improper access control class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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>= 2.0.0, < 4.10.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 · scoped4.10.0
4.10.0
- Backup your Zulip Server data before upgrading
- Ensure your system meets the prerequisites for Zulip Server 4.10.0
- Follow the official upgrade documentation at https://zulip.readthedocs.io/en/stable/production.html#upgrading
- After upgrading, verify that all organizations are functioning correctly
- Review invitation settings in all organizations to ensure proper configuration
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-21706 — 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-2022-21706 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