VulnerabilityPublished 15 Nov 2025Updated 17 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-7736: GitLab · Incorrect Authorization

Affects GitLabSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.1 Low · fixed in 18.5.2 : update GitLab when convenient.

Data as of 13 Nov 2026, 19:39 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.1Low

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitLab)	CVSS 3.1	3.1

Patch: Available – fixed in 18.5.2, 18.4.4, 18.3.6

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 15 Nov 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 13 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity 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 to 18.5.2, 18.4.4 or 18.3.6.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitLab GitLab	Affected =17.9 =18.4 =18.5 >=17.9 <18.3.6 >=18.4 <18.4.4 >=18.5 <18.5.2	Fixed in 18.3.6 18.4.4 18.5.2

AI-suggested

Upgrade GitLab CE/EE to versions 18.3.6, 18.4.4, or 18.5.2 or later to remediate this vulnerability. These versions contain the official fix for the authorization bypass issue. No additional mitigations are indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

CVE-2025-7736 is an authorization bypass vulnerability in GitLab CE/EE affecting versions 17.9 before 18.3.6, 18.4 before 18.4.4, and 18.5 before 18.5.2. The flaw allowed authenticated attackers to bypass access control and view GitLab Pages content intended only for project members by authenticating through OAuth providers. The vulnerability has a low severity score and does not impact integrity or availability.

Impact

An authenticated attacker could bypass intended access controls to view GitLab Pages content restricted to project members. The impact is limited to confidentiality (information disclosure) with no known effect on data integrity or system availability. There are no known exploits in the wild.

Summary

This vulnerability (CWE-863) in GitLab CE/EE allowed authenticated users to bypass access control restrictions on GitLab Pages content by leveraging OAuth authentication. It affected all versions from 17.9 prior to 18.3.6, 18.4 prior to 18.4.4, and 18.5 prior to 18.5.2. The issue was remediated in the fixed versions 18.3.6, 18.4.4, and 18.5.2. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 3.1, reflecting a low impact primarily on confidentiality with no impact on integrity or availability.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 13 Nov 2026, 19:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats