CVE-2023-3747
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 · uneditedZero Trust Administrators have the ability to disallow end users from disabling WARP on their devices. Override codes can also be created by the Administrators to allow a device to temporarily be disconnected from WARP, however, due to lack of server side validation, an attacker with local access to the device, could extend the maximum allowed disconnected time of WARP client granted by an override code by changing the date & time on the local device where WARP is running.
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 confidenceThe WARP client performs override code expiration validation client-side using the local device clock rather than validating against an authoritative server time. An attacker with local access can extend the permitted disconnection window beyond its intended duration by manipulating the system date/time, bypassing the administrator-defined override code limits.
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= 6.29CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check if Cloudflare Warp client is installedLook for the Warp client installation on the system. On Windows, check C:\Program Files\Cloudflare\WARP\ or C:\Program Files (x86)\Cloudflare\WARP\. On macOS, check /Applications/ for Cloudflare WARP.app. On Linux, check /opt/cloudflare-warp/ or via package manager listing.Affected if Cloudflare Warp is installed on the system
-
Identify the installed Warp client versionOpen the Warp client UI and navigate to Settings > About, or run the client executable with a version flag if available from command line. The version is displayed in the application interface.Affected if Installed version is exactly 6.29
-
Verify override code feature is in useCheck the Warp client configuration or organizational MDM/GPO policies for override code settings. Look for any configured disconnection override codes or time-limited access policies within the Warp administration settings.Affected if Override codes or disconnection window policies are configured in the Warp client or associated management policy
The environment is affected if Cloudflare Warp version 6.29 is installed AND override codes or disconnection windows are configured, since an attacker with local system access could manipulate the clock to bypass time-based restrictions.
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 server-side validation of override codes using authoritative timestamps from the server, ensuring the disconnection period is enforced by the server rather than relying on client-reported time.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-3747 — 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-2023-3747 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