CVE-2023-22650
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in which Rancher does not automatically clean up a user which has been deleted from the configured authentication provider (AP). This characteristic also applies to disabled or revoked users, Rancher will not reflect these modifications which may leave the user’s tokens still usable.
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 confidenceRancher fails to synchronize user lifecycle changes from external authentication providers (AP). When users are deleted, disabled, or revoked in the IdP, Rancher does not reflect these changes and maintains the users in active status with valid tokens, allowing former users continued access to the Rancher environment.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Verify external authentication is configuredIn Rancher UI, go to Users & Authentication > Auth Providers. Check if any external provider (Azure AD, Okta, PingIdentity, etc.) is enabled and configured.Affected if External authentication providers are configured and active
-
Identify externally-sourced usersIn Rancher UI, go to Users & Authentication > Users. Look for users where the Source column shows an external IdP (not 'Local'). Alternatively, use API: GET /v3/users and check each user's 'principalIds' field for external principal links.Affected if Users exist with external IdP sources (Azure AD, Okta, SAML providers, etc.)
-
Compare IdP user status with Rancher user statusExport or list all users from the external IdP with their account status (enabled/disabled/deleted). Cross-reference with Rancher users by comparing external principal IDs. Check if any users marked as disabled or deleted in the IdP still show as 'Active' in Rancher.Affected if Users disabled or deleted in the IdP still appear as active in Rancher
-
Check for valid tokens from potentially deprovisioned usersIn Rancher UI, go to Users & Authentication > Tokens. Review active tokens. Cross-reference token owners against external users who should have been deprovisioned. Alternatively, API: GET /v3/tokens to list tokens and check their userId against the user list.Affected if Active tokens exist for users who have been disabled or removed from the external IdP
A user is affected if external authentication is configured and users who were disabled, deleted, or deprovisioned in the IdP still appear as active in Rancher with valid tokens.
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 dataManually audit and remove deprovisioned users from Rancher; implement regular user lifecycle audits to ensure disabled/deleted IdP users are also disabled in Rancher; revoke existing tokens for affected users.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-22650 — 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-2023-22650 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