CoderApplication
CVE-2024-27918
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 · uneditedCoder allows oragnizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.6.1, 2.7.3, and 2.8.4, a vulnerability in Coder's OIDC authentication could allow an attacker to bypass the `CODER_OIDC_EMAIL_DOMAIN` verification and create an account with an email not in the allowlist. Deployments are only affected if the OIDC provider allows users to create accounts on the provider. During OIDC registration, the user's email was improperly validated against the allowed `CODER_OIDC_EMAIL_DOMAIN`s. This could allow a user with a domain that only partially matched an allowed domain to successfully login or register. An attacker could register a domain name that exploited this vulnerability and register on a Coder instance with a public OIDC provider. Coder instances with OIDC enabled and protected by the `CODER_OIDC_EMAIL_DOMAIN` configuration are affected. Coder instances using a private OIDC provider are not affected, as arbitrary users cannot register through a private OIDC provider without first having an account on the provider. Public OIDC providers are impacted. GitHub authentication and external authentication are not impacted. This vulnerability is remedied in versions 2.8.4, 2.7.3, and 2.6.1 All versions prior to these patches are affected by the vulnerability.*It is recommended that customers upgrade their deployments as soon as possible if they are utilizing OIDC authentication with the `CODER_OIDC_EMAIL_DOMAIN` setting.
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 analysisThe application accepts input without confirming it is well-formed or within expected bounds, so malformed data can push the program into states its author never anticipated. Attackers probe these gaps to trigger crashes, bypass logic, or feed tainted values into more dangerous operations downstream. Remediating it well means validating and normalising every input at the boundary against a strict allow-list — not merely filtering known-bad values.
General guidance for the improper input validation 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
CoderApplication
< 2.6.1>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.3>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.4CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H
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 · scoped2.6.12.7.32.8.4
Coder 2.8.4 (latest stable release)
- 1. Identify your current Coder version using `coder version` or checking the deployment configuration
- 2. For Coder < 2.6.1: Upgrade to version 2.6.1 or later
- 3. For Coder >= 2.7.0 and < 2.7.3: Upgrade to version 2.7.3 or later
- 4. For Coder >= 2.8.0 and < 2.8.4: Upgrade to version 2.8.4 or later
- 5. After upgrading, verify OIDC authentication still functions correctly with your `CODER_OIDC_EMAIL_DOMAIN` configuration
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-2024-27918 — 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-2024-27918 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