DiscordrbApplication · Discordrb Project
CVE-2023-28102
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 · unediteddiscordrb is an implementation of the Discord API using Ruby. In discordrb before commit `91e13043ffa` the `encoder.rb` file unsafely constructs a shell string using the file parameter, which can potentially leave clients of discordrb vulnerable to command injection. The library is not directly exploitable: the exploit requires that some client of the library calls the vulnerable method with user input. However, if unsafe input reaches the library method, then an attacker can execute arbitrary shell commands on the host machine. Full impact will depend on the permissions of the process running the `discordrb` library and will likely not be total system access. This issue has been addressed in code, but a new release of the `discordrb` gem has not been uploaded to rubygems. This issue is also tracked as `GHSL-2022-094`.
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 analysisUser input reaches a shell or system command without being fully separated from the command itself, so an attacker can append their own instructions. Because these run with the application's privileges, it often means full control of the host. The lasting fix is to avoid the shell entirely — call APIs directly and pass arguments as data, never as concatenated strings.
General guidance for the os command injection 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
DiscordrbApplication
< 2023-03-08CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/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 · scoped2023-03-08
91e13043ffa89227c3fcdc3408f06da237d28c95 (git commit)
- Check the current version of discordrb in use (e.g., via Gemfile or gem list)
- Locate the vulnerable code in encoder.rb that unsafely constructs shell commands using the file parameter
- Apply the fix from commit 91e13043ffa89227c3fcdc3408f06da237d28c95 to encoder.rb, ensuring user input is properly escaped or alternative safe methods are used to handle file parameters
- If using Bundler, update the Gemfile to point to the fixed commit: gem 'discordrb', git: 'https://github.com/shardlab/discordrb.git', ref: '91e13043ffa89227c3fcdc3408f06da237d28c95'
- Run bundle install to update the dependency
- Verify the fix by reviewing the patched encoder.rb code to confirm shell command construction is now safe
- Test the application to ensure functionality remains intact
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-2023-28102 — 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-2023-28102 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