CVE-2023-36456
Goauthentik Authentik ≤ 2023.4.3
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2023-36456 is a high-severity Interpretation Conflict (CWE-436) vulnerability in Goauthentik Authentik. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 47% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-40420
Vulnerability Data
authentik is an open-source Identity Provider. Prior to versions 2023.4.3 and 2023.5.5, authentik does not verify the source of the X-Forwarded-For and X-Real-IP headers, both in the Python code and the go code. Only authentik setups that are directly accessible…
more
by users without a reverse proxy are susceptible to this. Possible spoofing of IP addresses in logs, downstream applications proxied by (built in) outpost, IP bypassing in custom flows if used. This poses a possible security risk when someone has flows or policies that check the user's IP address, e.g. when they want to ignore the user's 2 factor authentication when the user is connected to the company network. A second security risk is that the IP addresses in the logfiles and user sessions are not reliable anymore. Anybody can spoof this address and one cannot verify that the user has logged in from the IP address that is in their account's log. A third risk is that this header is passed on to the proxied application behind an outpost. The application may do any kind of verification, logging, blocking or rate limiting based on the IP address, and this IP address can be overridden by anybody that want to. Versions 2023.4.3 and 2023.5.5 contain a patch for this 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.