Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') in GitLab
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 25/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.36% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. A user must open a link or visit a page. Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
- Fixed version: GitLab GitLab 17.1.6, 17.2.4, 17.3.1.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to GitLab GitLab 17.1.6, 17.2.4, 17.3.1 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
An issue was discovered in GitLab EE affecting all versions starting 17.0 to 17.1.6, 17.2 prior to 17.2.4, and 17.3 prior to 17.3.1 allows an attacker to execute arbitrary command in a victim's pipeline through prompt injection.
- Published
- Aug 22, 2024
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.3% · 28th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-77
Report tools
Action score
25
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 25 / 40 · 6.4 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.3%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 6.4
- CNA · GitLab
- 6.4
- agree
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| gitlab | gitlab | cpe:2.3:a:gitlab:gitlab |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- gitlab gitlab17.0.0 and later · before 17.1.6
- gitlab gitlab17.2.0 and later · before 17.2.4
- gitlab gitlab17.3.0 and later · before 17.3.1
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitLab). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
GitLab GitLab
- 17.1 and later · before 17.1.6affected · semver
- 17.2 and later · before 17.2.4affected · semver
- 17.3 and later · before 17.3.1affected · semver
Same product
gitlab: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2021-22205An issue has been discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions starting from 11.9.KEV100Now
- CVE-2026-85706Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') in GitLabKEV98Now
- CVE-2023-7028Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password in GitLabKEV97Now
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2024-3127Aug 22, 2024 · Improper Access Control in GitLab17Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2024-6502Aug 22, 2024 · Incorrect Provision of Specified Functionality in GitLab26Monitor
- Later →CVE-2024-8041Aug 22, 2024 · Uncontrolled Resource Consumption in GitLab26Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| GitLab GitLab | 17.1.6 | Vendor (CNA) |
| GitLab GitLab | 17.2.4 | Vendor (CNA) |
| GitLab GitLab | 17.3.1 | Vendor (CNA) |
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.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
- CVE-2023-1708505 days apartAn issue was identified in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 1.0 prior to 15.8.5, 15.9 prior to 15.9.4, and 15.10 prior to 15.10.1 wh39Monitor
- CVE-2024-864021 days apartImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') in GitLab35Monitor
- CVE-2024-9773217 days apartImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') in GitLab32Monitor
- CVE-2024-8402203 days apartImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') in GitLab29Monitor
- CVE-2019-14944495 days apartAn issue was discovered in GitLab Community and Enterprise Edition before 11.11.8, 12 before 12.0.6, and 12.1 before 12.1.6.26Monitor
- CVE-2025-6945450 days apartImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') in GitLab14Monitor
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
- CVE-2024-4024119 days apartAuthentication Bypass by Assumed-Immutable Data in GitLab39Monitor
- CVE-2024-667821 days apartAuthentication Bypass by Spoofing in GitLab36Monitor
- CVE-2024-916450 days apartMissing Authentication for Critical Function in GitLab35Monitor
- CVE-2024-478414 days apartAuthentication Bypass by Primary Weakness in GitLab21Monitor
Bug bounty scope
The product’s vendor appears in a public program. Matched by name; verify the scope text in the program.
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- A user must open a link or visit a page.
- Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-77 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
nvd-primary
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)
- LDAP InjectionCAPEC-136likelihood: High · High
- Command DelimitersCAPEC-15likelihood: High · High
- IMAP/SMTP Command InjectionCAPEC-183Medium
- Command InjectionCAPEC-248likelihood: Medium · High
- Manipulating Writeable Terminal DevicesCAPEC-40likelihood: High · Very High
- Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation LayersCAPEC-43likelihood: Medium · High
- Manipulating Writeable Configuration FilesCAPEC-75likelihood: High · Very High
- Manipulating Web Input to File System CallsCAPEC-76likelihood: High · Very High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.