GitLabApplication
CVE-2023-4379
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 from 15.3 prior to 16.2.8, 16.3 prior to 16.3.5, and 16.4 prior to 16.4.1. Code owner approval was not removed from merge requests when the target branch was updated.
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 confidenceIn GitLab EE, when a merge request's target branch is updated (e.g., merging main into a feature branch), code owner approvals from the previous target branch state were incorrectly retained instead of being cleared. This allowed merge requests to potentially be merged without proper approvals if the approvals were tied to an older branch state.
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
GitLabApplication
>= 15.3.0, < 16.2.8>= 16.3.0, < 16.3.5= 16.4.0CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Check installed GitLab versionRun `gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info` or check the GitLab admin area to see the exact version number installedAffected if The version falls within 15.3.0 to 16.2.7, 16.3.0 to 16.3.4, or equals 16.4.0
-
Verify code owners feature is in useCheck if any projects have a CODEOWNERS file present by reviewing project settings or checking for CODEOWNERS files in repositoriesAffected if Code owners functionality is enabled and CODEOWNERS files exist in projects with active merge requests
-
Identify merge requests with changed target branchesReview merge request logs or database records for merge requests where the target branch was updated (e.g., via merge from main into feature branch) after initial approval was grantedAffected if Merge requests exist where the target branch was modified after code owner approvals were initially given
-
Inspect approval rules for affected merge requestsExamine the approval rules on merge requests that have had target branch updates to see if approvals still reference the old branch stateAffected if Approvals are retained from a previous target branch configuration rather than being cleared upon target branch change
You are affected if running a vulnerable GitLab EE version with active code owners usage and merge requests where target branches were updated after initial approvals were granted.
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 · scoped16.2.816.3.5
Upgrade GitLab EE to version 16.2.8, 16.3.5, or 16.4.1 or later. Alternatively, manually review and remove stale code owner approvals from affected merge requests as a temporary mitigation.
16.4.1 (or 16.2.8/16.3.5 depending on your current minor version)
- 1. Identify the currently installed GitLab version using `sudo gitlab-rake gitlab:version`
- 2. For GitLab installations in the 15.3.x to 16.2.x range: upgrade to version 16.2.8 or later
- 3. For GitLab installations in the 16.3.x range: upgrade to version 16.3.5 or later
- 4. For GitLab installations at version 16.4.0: upgrade to version 16.4.1 or later
- 5. After upgrade, verify the fix by creating a test merge request, updating the target branch, and confirming code owner approval is properly removed
- 6. Ensure you have a tested backup before performing the upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in GitLab
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2023-4379 — 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-2023-4379 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