CVE-2023-3285
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 BOLA vulnerability in POST /appointments allows a low privileged user to create an appointment for any user in the system (including admin). This results in unauthorized data manipulation.
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 confidenceA BOLA (Broken Object Level Authorization) vulnerability in the POST /appointments endpoint allows authenticated low-privilege users to create appointments on behalf of any user in the system, including administrators, due to missing or insufficient authorization validation on the target user parameter.
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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N
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 if the /appointments endpoint exists and accepts POST requestsReview application API documentation or use a network proxy to capture traffic and confirm the POST /appointments endpoint is exposed and functional in your environmentAffected if The endpoint exists and processes POST requests without explicit testing of authorization boundaries
-
Determine the authentication requirements for the /appointments endpointAttempt to send a POST request to /appointments without authentication headers or credentials and observe the response (401 Unauthorized indicates authentication is required; 200/201 indicates it may be accessible without auth)Affected if The endpoint accepts requests from unauthenticated users or accepts any authenticated session without privilege validation
-
Test whether a low-privilege user can specify a target user ID in the appointment creation requestLog in with a low-privilege user account and submit a POST request to /appointments with a payload containing a target user parameter (such as user_id, target_user, or owner_id) set to a different user's ID (such as an admin account). Inspect the response and verify if the appointment was created for that other userAffected if A low-privilege authenticated user can successfully create an appointment for a different user, including administrators, without receiving a 403 Forbidden response
-
Check if the application validates authorization before creating appointmentsReview application logs or enable debug logging, then attempt to create an appointment as a low-privilege user targeting a privileged account. Look for authorization check logic in the backend code or proxy intercepts to confirm whether the server validates that the requester has permission to act on behalf of the target userAffected if No authorization validation occurs or the validation can be bypassed by manipulating the target user parameter in the request
-
Compare your deployed application version to any documented affected versionsCheck the application version in use (typically found in about pages, HTTP headers, source code, or configuration files) and compare it to any version ranges mentioned in CVE-2023-3285 documentation or release notes for the affected productAffected if The installed version falls within the range where this BOLA vulnerability exists and has not been patched
-
Verify if input validation exists for the target user parameterIntercept the POST /appointments request and examine the request body for user-referencing parameters (userId, user_id, targetUser, etc.). Attempt to send requests with manipulated values or unexpected data types and check if the application rejects them or processes them blindlyAffected if The application accepts any value for the target user parameter without validating it against the authenticated user's identity or permissions
A user is affected if the POST /appointments endpoint allows an authenticated low-privilege user to create appointments for other users (including administrators) by specifying a target user parameter, indicating missing or insufficient authorization 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.
From vendor dataImplement and enforce proper object-level authorization checks to verify the authenticated user has permission to create appointments for the specified target user before processing the request.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-3285 — 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-2023-3285 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