CVE-2023-38051
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 /secretaries/{secretaryId} allows a low privileged user to fetch, modify or delete a low privileged user (secretary). 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 /secretaries/{secretaryId} endpoint allows authenticated low-privileged users to perform GET, PUT, and DELETE operations on other low-privileged user (secretary) accounts. The application fails to validate that the requesting user has authorization to access or modify the specific secretary resource identified by the URL 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.
-
Identify Easyappointments versionCheck the version.php file in the application root or the admin dashboard under Settings > About. Compare the version number to the affected range (< 1.5.0).Affected if The installed version is lower than 1.5.0.
-
Locate the secretaries API endpointReview the API routing configuration (typically in routes/api.php or similar) to confirm the /secretaries/{secretaryId} endpoint exists and accepts GET, PUT, and DELETE methods.Affected if The /secretaries/{secretaryId} endpoint is defined and accessible via the API.
-
Verify user authentication is requiredAttempt an unauthenticated request to the /secretaries/{secretaryId} endpoint. Check if the application returns an authentication error or rejects the request.Affected if The endpoint allows unauthenticated access (no authentication required).
-
Test object-level authorization enforcementLog in as a low-privileged user (non-admin) with secretary access. Make a GET, PUT, or DELETE request to /secretaries/{secretaryId} using a different valid secretaryId that does not belong to the authenticated user. Inspect the response for 403 Forbidden or similar authorization error.Affected if The request succeeds and returns data or performs the operation without returning a 403 or authorization error, indicating BOLA is present.
-
Review application logs for unauthorized access attemptsExamine application access logs or audit logs for patterns where low-privileged users accessed secretary resources with IDs not matching their own account.Affected if Logs show low-privileged users successfully accessed or modified other secretaries' records.
The environment is affected if Easyappointments version is below 1.5.0 AND the /secretaries/{secretaryId} endpoint permits a low-privileged authenticated user to read, modify, or delete another user's secretary record without proper authorization checks.
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 object-level authorization checks at each endpoint to verify the authenticated user has permission to access or modify the specific secretary resource. Ensure the requesting user's permissions are validated against the target secretaryId before executing any operation.
EasyAppointments 1.5.0 or later
- 1. Backup your current EasyAppointments installation and database before upgrading
- 2. Download EasyAppointments version 1.5.0 or later from the official GitHub repository (github.com/alextselegidis/easyappointments)
- 3. Replace the existing installation files with the new version files
- 4. Verify that the authorization checks are now properly enforcing access control on the /secretaries/{secretaryId} endpoints
- 5. Test with a low-privileged user account to confirm the BOLA vulnerability is fixed (the user should no longer be able to access, modify, or delete other secretary records)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-38051 — 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-2023-38051 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