CVE-2023-22735
Zulip Server 2023-01-09
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2023-22735 is a medium-severity Interpretation Conflict (CWE-436) vulnerability in Zulip Zulip Server. Its CVSS base score is 4.4 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 41th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-26855
Vulnerability Data
Zulip is an open-source team collaboration tool. In versions of zulip prior to commit `2f6c5a8` but after commit `04cf68b` users could upload files with arbitrary `Content-Type` which would be served from the Zulip hostname with `Content-Disposition: inline` and no `Content-Security-Policy`…
more
header, allowing them to trick other users into executing arbitrary Javascript in the context of the Zulip application. Among other things, this enables session theft. Only deployments which use the S3 storage (not the local-disk storage) are affected, and only deployments which deployed commit 04cf68b45ebb5c03247a0d6453e35ffc175d55da, which has only been in `main`, not any numbered release. Users affected should upgrade from main again to deploy this fix. Switching from S3 storage to the local-disk storage would nominally mitigate this, but is likely more involved than upgrading to the latest `main` which addresses the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly reduce the chance of introducing parser or state-machine inconsistencies.
Correlating logs from multiple products can surface discrepancies caused by interpretation conflicts.
Runtime monitoring of software behavior can detect adverse outcomes stemming from differing interpretations.
Supplier risk assessments can identify products whose differing interpretations create systemic exposure.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect and correct cases where one component misinterprets another’s state or messages.
Secure development lifecycle can require consistent interface contracts and canonicalization rules that reduce interpretation conflicts between components.
Explicit application security requirements can mandate unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that prevent divergent interpretations.
Secure architecture principles include well-defined component boundaries and shared data models that limit conflicting state perceptions.
Secure coding standards can enforce canonical input handling and strict protocol compliance to avoid misinterpretation between products.