InlongApplication · Apache
CVE-2023-31098
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 · uneditedWeak Password Requirements vulnerability in Apache Software Foundation Apache InLong.This issue affects Apache InLong: from 1.1.0 through 1.6.0. When users change their password to a simple password (with any character or symbol), attackers can easily guess the user's password and access the account. Users are advised to upgrade to Apache InLong's 1.7.0 or cherry-pick https://github.com/apache/inlong/pull/7805 https://github.com/apache/inlong/pull/7805 to solve it.
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 confidenceWeak password requirements in Apache InLong allow users to set trivially guessable passwords during password change, enabling attackers to easily brute force accounts. The password validation logic accepts any character or symbol without enforcing complexity rules.
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
InlongApplication
>= 1.1.0, <= 1.6.0CVSS 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
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 installed Apache InLong versionLocate the InLong version file or check the version endpoint/API of your deployment. Common locations include version properties files, docker image tags, or the admin/management interface.Affected if The installed version is >= 1.1.0 and <= 1.6.0
-
Confirm password change functionality is accessibleVerify that user registration or password change endpoints are enabled in your InLong deployment. Check if anonymous or unauthenticated user creation is permitted in the security configuration.Affected if Password change or user creation endpoints are accessible and active in the deployment
-
Inspect password validation configurationExamine the InLong configuration files (such as application.yml, bootstrap.yml, or security-related property files) for password policy or validation rules. Look for settings related to password complexity, minimum length, character requirements, or pattern matching.Affected if No password complexity requirements are defined in the configuration, or the validation logic accepts any character without restrictions
-
Test password change with weak credentialsUse the password change or user creation API/interface to attempt setting a trivially guessable password such as '123456', 'password', or 'admin123'. Observe whether the request is accepted without rejection.Affected if The system accepts weak or commonly-used passwords without validation errors
Your environment is affected if Apache InLong version 1.1.0 through 1.6.0 is running with password change or user creation functionality enabled, and weak passwords can be set without complexity validation.
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 · scopedUpgrade to Apache InLong 1.7.0 or cherry-pick PR #7805 which implements proper password complexity validation to prevent use of weak passwords.
1.7.0
- Backup your current Apache InLong data and configuration files before upgrading
- Stop all InLong services to prevent data inconsistency during the upgrade process
- Download Apache InLong version 1.7.0 from the official Apache repository (downloads.apache.org/inlong/)
- Install or upgrade to InLong 1.7.0 following the standard installation documentation
- Start the InLong services and verify they are running correctly
- Test the password change functionality to confirm that weak passwords are now rejected
- Verify that the password policy now properly enforces stronger password requirements
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Inlong
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-31098 — 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-2023-31098 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