CVE-2023-3904
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 · uneditedAn issue has been discovered in GitLab EE affecting all versions starting before 16.4.4, all versions starting from 16.5 before 16.5.4, all versions starting from 16.6 before 16.6.2. It was possible to overflow the time spent on an issue that altered the details shown in the issue boards.
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 confidenceAn integer overflow vulnerability in GitLab EE allows manipulation of the 'time spent' field on issues, causing the value to exceed its intended bounds and corrupting the data displayed in issue boards. The overflow occurs when the time tracking value exceeds the maximum integer storage capacity, leading to incorrect or unexpected issue details being shown.
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< 16.4.4>= 16.5, < 16.5.4>= 16.6, < 16.6.2CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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 installed GitLab EE versionRun `sudo gitlab-rake gitlab:version` or check the GitLab admin panel under Help > Version to obtain the exact version numberAffected if The version is < 16.4.4, OR >= 16.5.0 and < 16.5.4, OR >= 16.6.0 and < 16.6.2
-
Verify time tracking feature is in useNavigate to Project > Settings > Integrations or check if any issues contain values in the 'time spent' or 'time estimate' fieldsAffected if Time tracking is enabled and users have logged time spent on issues
-
Inspect issue board data for anomaliesOpen issue boards and review issues that have time tracking data. Look for issues where the displayed 'time spent' value appears unexpectedly large, negative, or otherwise incorrect compared to what was loggedAffected if Any issues show corrupted or unexpected time tracking values on issue boards
-
Check database for overflowed integer valuesQuery the database (e.g., `SELECT id, title, time_spent FROM issues WHERE time_spent > 2147483647 OR time_spent < 0`) to identify records with integer overflow valuesAffected if Any issues have time_spent values exceeding the 32-bit signed integer maximum (2,147,483,647) or showing negative values
You are affected if your GitLab EE version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND time tracking is enabled with time spent values logged on issues.
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 · scoped16.4.416.5.416.6.2
Upgrade GitLab EE to version 16.4.4, 16.5.4, 16.6.2 or later to receive the patch for this integer overflow vulnerability.
16.6.2 or later (latest stable 16.x release)
- 1. Identify your current GitLab version by navigating to the GitLab instance admin area or running `gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info`
- 2. Determine which upgrade path applies: if below 16.4.4 upgrade to 16.4.4; if 16.5.x upgrade to 16.5.4; if 16.6.0-16.6.1 upgrade to 16.6.2
- 3. Review GitLab release notes for the target version for any breaking changes or required pre-upgrade actions
- 4. Create a full backup of your GitLab instance using `gitlab-backup create`
- 5. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- 6. Schedule a maintenance window and stop GitLab services
- 7. Update GitLab using your installation method (package manager, Docker, source) to the appropriate fixed version
- 8. Reconfigure GitLab with `gitlab-ctl reconfigure` if using Omnibus
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-3904 — 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-2023-3904 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