CVE-2023-48220
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 · uneditedDecidim is a participatory democracy framework. Starting in version 0.4.rc3 and prior to version 2.0.9 of the `devise_invitable` gem, the invites feature allows users to accept the invitation for an unlimited amount of time through the password reset functionality. This issue creates vulnerable dependencies starting in version 0.0.1.alpha3 and prior to versions 0.26.9, 0.27.5, and 0.28.0 of the `decidim,` `decidim-admin`, and `decidim-system` gems. When using the password reset functionality, the `devise_invitable` gem always accepts the pending invitation if the user has been invited. The only check done is if the user has been invited but the code does not ensure that the pending invitation is still valid as defined by the `invite_for` expiry period. Decidim sets this configuration to `2.weeks` so this configuration should be respected. The bug is in the `devise_invitable` gem and should be fixed there and the dependency should be upgraded in Decidim once the fix becomes available. `devise_invitable` to version `2.0.9` and above fix this issue. Versions 0.26.9, 0.27.5, and 0.28.0 of the `decidim,` `decidim-admin`, and `decidim-system` gems contain this fix. As a workaround, invitations can be cancelled directly from the database.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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>= 0.0.2, < 0.26.9>= 0.27.0, < 0.27.5= 0.0.1>= 0.4.1, < 2.0.9= 0.4.0CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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 · scoped0.26.90.27.52.0.9
Decidim: 0.26.9, 0.27.5, or 0.28.0+ (which includes devise_invitable >= 2.0.9)
- 1. Identify the currently installed Decidim version by checking the Gemfile or Gemfile.lock
- 2. If using Decidim < 0.26.x: Upgrade to Decidim version 0.26.9 or higher (or 0.27.5, or 0.28.0)
- 3. If using Decidim 0.26.x: Upgrade to Decidim version 0.26.9 or higher
- 4. If using Decidim 0.27.x: Upgrade to Decidim version 0.27.5 or higher
- 5. Run bundle install to update dependencies including devise_invitable to >= 2.0.9
- 6. Run database migrations if any are required
- 7. Test the invitation acceptance flow to verify the invite_for expiry is now respected
- 8. Deploy the updated version to production
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-48220 — 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-2023-48220 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