CVE-2024-2743
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 was discovered in GitLab-EE starting with version 13.3 before 17.1.7, 17.2 before 17.2.5, and 17.3 before 17.3.2 that would allow an attacker to modify an on-demand DAST scan without permissions and leak variables.
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 confidenceThis is an authorization bypass vulnerability in GitLab's on-demand DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) scanning feature. An attacker can modify DAST scan configurations without proper permissions, potentially leaking sensitive variables used in security scans. The issue stems from missing or inadequate authorization checks in the DAST scan modification endpoints.
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>= 13.3.0, < 17.1.7>= 17.2.0, < 17.2.5>= 17.3.0, < 17.3.2CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Determine installed GitLab versionRun `cat /opt/gitlab/version` or `gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info` to retrieve the exact GitLab version installed in your environmentAffected if The installed version falls within 13.3.0 to 17.1.6, 17.2.0 to 17.2.4, or 17.3.0 to 17.3.1 (check if version is less than 17.1.7, 17.2.5, or 17.3.2 respectively)
-
Verify on-demand DAST scanning is enabledLog into GitLab as an administrator, navigate to the Admin Area, go to Settings > Security and Compliance, and check if On-demand DAST scanning is enabled for the instance or specific projectsAffected if On-demand DAST scanning is enabled and the GitLab version is in the affected range
-
Identify projects with DAST scan configurationsUse the GitLab Rails console (`gitlab-rails console`) to query existing DAST profiles: `Dast::Profile.select(:id, :project_id, :name, :created_at, :updated_at)` or check project settings under Security > DAST for any configured scan profilesAffected if Any DAST scan profiles exist in projects and the GitLab version is vulnerable
-
Review DAST scan profile modification logsCheck GitLab audit logs for modifications to DAST profiles: go to Project > Security > DAST > Audit Events, or query the audit logs via API: `GET /projects/:id/audit_events?entity_type=Dast::Profile`Affected if There are unexpected or unauthorized modification events on DAST profiles that were not performed by legitimate administrators
You are affected if your GitLab version is below 17.1.7, 17.2.5, or 17.3.2 AND on-demand DAST scanning is enabled with configured scan profiles that could be modified without proper authorization.
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 · scoped17.1.717.2.517.3.2
Upgrade GitLab to version 17.1.7, 17.2.5, or 17.3.2 or later. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict access to on-demand DAST scan endpoints and audit existing scan configurations for unauthorized modifications.
Upgrade to GitLab 17.3.2 (or 17.2.5 if on 17.2.x branch, or 17.1.7 if on 17.1.x branch)
- 1. Identify the current GitLab installation version using gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info or the GitLab admin interface
- 2. If currently running a version >= 13.3.0 and < 17.1.7, plan upgrade to version 17.1.7
- 3. If currently running a version >= 17.2.0 and < 17.2.5, plan upgrade to version 17.2.5
- 4. If currently running a version >= 17.3.0 and < 17.3.2, plan upgrade to version 17.3.2
- 5. Before upgrading, review GitLab release notes for any breaking changes between your current version and target version
- 6. Perform a backup of the GitLab database and repositories
- 7. Follow the official GitLab upgrade documentation for your installation method (Omnibus or source)
- 8. After upgrade, verify the GitLab version matches the expected patched release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-2743 — 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-2024-2743 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