CVE-2023-6371
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 CE/EE affecting all versions before 16.8.5, all versions starting from 16.9 before 16.9.3, all versions starting from 16.10 before 16.10.1. A wiki page with a crafted payload may lead to a Stored XSS, allowing attackers to perform arbitrary actions on behalf of victims.
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 analysisUntrusted input is placed into a web page without being neutralised, so an attacker's markup or script executes in another user's browser. That can hijack sessions, capture keystrokes, or silently perform actions as the victim. Fixing it properly means context-aware output encoding everywhere data meets HTML, backed by a content-security policy as a second line of defence.
General guidance for the cross-site scripting (xss) class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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< 16.8.5>= 16.9.0, < 16.9.3= 16.10.0CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 · scoped16.8.516.9.3
Upgrade to GitLab 16.8.5, 16.9.3, or 16.10.1 (whichever is the next stable release in your current major version branch)
- Identify the current GitLab version using `sudo gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info` or the GitLab admin panel
- Determine which upgrade path applies based on current version: if < 16.8.5 upgrade to 16.8.5; if >= 16.9.0 and < 16.9.3 upgrade to 16.9.3; if >= 16.10.0 and < 16.10.1 upgrade to 16.10.1
- Review GitLab upgrade documentation for your installation method (Omnibus, source, or Helm chart)
- Create a full backup of the GitLab instance before upgrading using `sudo gitlab-backup-create`
- For Omnibus installations: update using `sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install gitlab-ce` (or `gitlab-ee` for Enterprise Edition)
- For source installations: follow the GitLab upgrade guides to build from the specific tagged release
- After upgrade, verify the new version is running with `sudo gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info`
- Clear browser cache and test GitLab functionality, particularly wiki pages
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-2023-6371 — 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-2023-6371 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