Non-constant-time SCIM token comparison in Zulip Server
Zulip is an open-source team collaboration tool. For organizations with System for Cross-domain Identity Management(SCIM) account management enabled, Zulip Server 5.0 through 5.6 checked the SCIM bearer token using a comparator that did not run in constant time. Therefore, it might theoretically be possible for an attacker to infer the value of the token by performing a sophisticated timing analysis on a large number of failing requests. If successful, this would allow the attacker to impersonate the SCIM client for its abilities to read and update user accounts in the Zulip organization. Organizations where SCIM account management has not been enabled are not affected.
- Published
- Nov 16, 2022
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.6% · 44th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-200
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
14
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 14 / 40 · 3.7 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.6%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 3.7
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 3.7
- agree
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for the hundreds of thousands of vulnerabilities in the database; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| zulip | zulip server | cpe:2.3:a:zulip:zulip_server |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- zulip zulip server5.0 and later · before 5.7
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
zulip zulip
- >= 5.0, < 5.7affected
Same product
zulip: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2022-21706Multi-use invitations can grant access to other organizations in Zulip39Monitor
- CVE-2019-18933In Zulip Server versions from 1.7.0 to before 2.0.7, a bug in the new user signup process meant that users who registered their account usin39Monitor
- CVE-2020-15070Zulip Server 2.x before 2.1.7 allows eval injection if a privileged attacker were able to write directly to the postgres database, and chose35Monitor
- CVE-2017-0910In Zulip Server before 1.7.1, on a server with multiple realms, a vulnerability in the invitation system lets an authorized user of one real35Monitor
- CVE-2025-31478Zulip Authentication Backend Configuration Bypass32Monitor
- CVE-2024-36612Zulip from 8.0 to 8.3 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the handling of popovers.30Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- low · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- Low
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-200 · Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized ActorCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
nvd-primary
Root cause
The extension requests broader permissions than its function needs and sends the data it collects out for purposes beyond its stated function.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-200 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
{ "permissions": ["tabs", "<all_urls>"], "background": { "service_worker": "analytics.js" }}Fixed
{ "permissions": ["activeTab"], "host_permissions": ["https://yildiz.example/*"]}Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- ExcavationCAPEC-116likelihood: High · Medium
- Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-13likelihood: High · Very High
- FootprintingCAPEC-169likelihood: High · Very Low
- Exploiting Trust in ClientCAPEC-22likelihood: High · High
- FingerprintingCAPEC-224likelihood: High · Very Low
- ICMP Echo Request PingCAPEC-285likelihood: Medium · Low
- TCP SYN ScanCAPEC-287Low
- Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) RecordsCAPEC-290Low
ATT&CK techniques
- System Service DiscoveryT1007
- System Network Configuration DiscoveryT1016
- Remote System DiscoveryT1018
- System Owner/User DiscoveryT1033
- Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or LocationT1036.005
- Network Service ScanningT1046
- System Network Connections DiscoveryT1049
- Process DiscoveryT1057
- Permission Groups DiscoveryT1069
- System Information DiscoveryT1082
- File and Directory DiscoveryT1083
- Account DiscoveryT1087
- Multi-Factor Authentication InterceptionT1111
- Peripheral Device DiscoveryT1120
- System Time DiscoveryT1124
- Access Token Manipulation:Token Impersonation/TheftT1134.001
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
- github.com/zulip/zulip/commit/59edbfa4113d140d3e20126bc65f4d67b2a8ffe5
- github.com/zulip/zulip/security/advisories/GHSA-q5gx-377v-w76f
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.