CVE-2023-38050
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 GET, PUT, DELETE /webhooks/{webhookId} allows a low privileged user to fetch, modify or delete a webhook of any user (including admin). This results in unauthorized access and 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 webhook API endpoints (GET, PUT, DELETE at /webhooks/{webhookId}) allows authenticated low-privileged users to fetch, modify, or delete webhooks belonging to any user, including administrators, due to missing authorization validation on the webhookId parameter.
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< 1.5.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Confirm Easyappointments installation and versionLocate the installation directory and check the version file (typically version.php, composer.json, or package.json in the root directory). Compare the version number to the affected range (versions before 1.5.0).Affected if The installed version is Easyappointments and is earlier than 1.5.0
-
Identify if the webhook API is exposedCheck the API routing configuration (typically in routes/api.php, index.php, or a dedicated API routing file) for webhook endpoints at /webhooks/{webhookId} that accept GET, PUT, and DELETE methods.Affected if Webhook API endpoints (GET, PUT, DELETE at /webhooks/{webhookId}) are defined and accessible
-
Review user role configuration and privilege separationExamine the users table or user role configuration to identify if multiple user roles exist (such as admin, provider, customer) and if low-privileged users are present in the system.Affected if The system has multiple user roles and low-privileged users (non-admin) are configured
-
Check webhook data ownership recordsQuery the webhooks table to examine the owner_id or user_id field on webhook records. Verify if webhooks can be owned by different users and if the API validates ownership before allowing access.Affected if Webhooks table contains records owned by different users, and the API does not validate that the requesting user owns the webhook being accessed
-
Test webhook endpoint authorization (if test environment available)Using a low-privileged user account, attempt to access, modify, or delete a webhook belonging to a different user (such as an administrator) by directly calling the /webhooks/{webhookId} endpoint with that user's webhook ID.Affected if The API returns successful responses (200/204 status) when a low-privileged user performs operations on webhooks they do not own
A user is affected if they run Easyappointments version earlier than 1.5.0 with the webhook API enabled and have multiple user roles where low-privileged users can access webhooks owned by other users.
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 · scoped1.5.0
Implement and enforce proper object-level authorization checks to verify the authenticated user has permission to access/modify/delete the specific webhook before executing the operation on /webhooks/{webhookId} endpoints.
Easyappointments 1.5.0
- 1. Back up the current Easyappointments installation and database before proceeding
- 2. Download Easyappointments version 1.5.0 from the official GitHub repository or release channel
- 3. Replace the existing application files with the new version 1.5.0 files
- 4. Run any included database migrations or upgrade scripts if present
- 5. Verify the webhooks API endpoint now properly enforces authorization checks
- 6. Confirm low-privileged users can no longer access, modify, or delete webhooks belonging to other users or admins
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2023-38050 — 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-2023-38050 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