VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jan 2024Updated 29 May 2025

CVE-2024-0456: GitLab · Forced Browsing

Affects GitLabSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium · fixed in 16.8.1 : update GitLab when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 16.8.1, 16.7.4, 16.6.6

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Jan 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade gitlab-org/gitlab to 16.8.1, 16.7.4 or 16.6.6.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubgitlab-org/gitlab`pkg:github/gitlab-org/gitlab`Other threats	Affected =14.0 <16.6.6 >=16.7 <16.7.4 >=16.8 <16.8.1 =16.7 =16.8	Fixed in 16.6.6 16.7.4 16.8.1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should prioritize upgrading GitLab instances to the fixed versions 16.6.6, 16.7.4, or 16.8.1 as soon as these patches are available. If you cannot patch yet, organizations should implement strict access controls limiting who can create merge requests and assign users within projects, ideally restricting this capability to trusted personnel. Monitoring and auditing merge request assignments for unusual changes or unauthorized user assignments can help detect exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations can enforce multi-factor authentication and review project membership regularly to minimize the risk of privilege abuse. If immediate patching is not feasible, consider temporarily disabling or restricting merge request assignment features or workflows that allow arbitrary user assignments. Finally, maintain awareness of GitLab security advisories and subscribe to vendor notifications to ensure timely response to updates.

Description

An authorization vulnerability exists in GitLab versions 14.0 prior to 16.6.6, 16.7 prior to 16.7.4, and 16.8 prior to 16.8.1. An unauthorized attacker is able to assign arbitrary users to MRs that they created within the project

Impact

For European organizations using GitLab for source code management and collaboration, this vulnerability can disrupt development workflows by allowing unauthorized assignment of users to merge requests. This could lead to improper code review assignments, potential delays in development cycles, and confusion among development teams. While it does not directly expose sensitive data or allow code modification by unauthorized users, the integrity of project management and review processes is compromised. In regulated industries or organizations with strict compliance requirements, such manipulation could have downstream effects on audit trails and accountability. Additionally, attackers could leverage this flaw as part of a broader attack chain to sow discord or misattribute responsibility within development teams, potentially facilitating social engineering or insider threat scenarios. The impact is more pronounced in large organizations with complex project structures and multiple contributors, common in European enterprises and public sector entities.

CWE-425Direct Request ('Forced Browsing') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not adequately enforce appropriate authorization on all restricted URLs, scripts, or files.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Apply appropriate access control authorizations for each access to all restricted URLs, scripts or files.
Architecture and Design
Consider using MVC based frameworks such as Struts.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Detect Unpublicized Web Pages (opens in a new tab)
Detect Unpublicized Web Services (opens in a new tab)
Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB) (opens in a new tab)
Forceful Browsing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 23:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-425

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats