CVE-2023-36473
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 · uneditedDiscourse is an open source discussion platform. A CSP (Content Security Policy) nonce reuse vulnerability could allow XSS attacks to bypass CSP protection. There are no known XSS vectors at the moment, but should one be discovered, this vulnerability would allow the XSS attack to completely bypass CSP. The vulnerability is patched in the latest tests-passed, beta and stable branches.
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 confidenceDiscourse contains a Content Security Policy (CSP) nonce reuse vulnerability. The CSP nonce mechanism, designed to prevent XSS attacks by allowing only whitelisted script execution, has a flaw that could allow XSS attacks to completely bypass CSP protection if an XSS vector is discovered.
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< 3.0.5= 1.1.0= 1.2.0= 1.3.0= 1.4.0= 1.5.0= 1.6.0= 1.7.0= 1.8.0= 1.9.0= 2.0.0= 2.1.0CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Determine Discourse versionAccess the Discourse admin panel and navigate to /admin/about, or check the VERSION file in the Discourse root directory if you have server accessAffected if The installed version is lower than 3.0.5, or matches any of these: 1.1.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.4.0, 1.5.0, 1.6.0, 1.7.0, 1.8.0, 1.9.0, 2.0.0, or 2.1.0
-
Confirm CSP is activeSend a request to your Discourse instance and inspect the Content-Security-Policy HTTP response headerAffected if CSP headers are present and the nonce mechanism is in use, but the Discourse version is vulnerable as determined above
You are affected if your installed Discourse version is less than 3.0.5 or matches any of the specific 1.x/2.x versions listed, since the CSP nonce reuse flaw exists in those versions.
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 · scoped3.0.5
Upgrade Discourse to the latest tests-passed, beta, or stable branch which contains the patch for this vulnerability.
3.0.5 or later (latest stable/beta/tests-passed branch)
- 1. Backup your current Discourse installation and database
- 2. Update Discourse to the latest stable release by running ./discourse-upgrade or following the standard upgrade procedure
- 3. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the Discourse admin panel
- 4. Confirm the version number reflects the patched release (3.0.5 or later)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-36473 — 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-2023-36473 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