Security Resilience

CVE-2024-12093

Gitlab 11.1.0 – 17.10.7

Public PoC
Published
22 May 2025
Modified
08 August 2025
CVSS Score v3.1 6.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0047 39th percentile
Risk Priority 51 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2024-12093 is a medium-severity Improper Validation of Consistency within Input (CWE-1288) vulnerability in Gitlab Gitlab. Its CVSS base score is 6.8 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Junk Data (T1001.001); ranked at the 39th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

An issue has been discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 11.1 before 17.10.7, 17.11 before 17.11.3, and 18.0 before 18.0.1. Improper XPath validation allows modified SAML response to bypass 2FA requirement under specialized conditions.

CWE(s)
CWE-1288

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1001.001 Junk Data Command And Control
Adversaries may add junk data to protocols used for command and control to make detection more difficult.
attack.mitre.org →
T1003.001 LSASS Memory Credential Access
Adversaries may attempt to access credential material stored in the process memory of the Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS).
attack.mitre.org →
T1003.002 Security Account Manager Credential Access
Adversaries may attempt to extract credential material from the Security Account Manager (SAM) database either through in-memory techniques or through the Windows Registry where the SAM database is stored.
attack.mitre.org →
T1003.006 DCSync Credential Access
Adversaries may attempt to access credentials and other sensitive information by abusing a Windows Domain Controller's application programming interface (API)(Citation: Microsoft DRSR Dec 2017) (Citation: Microsoft GetNCCChanges) (Citati…
attack.mitre.org →
T1003.008 /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow Credential Access
Adversaries may attempt to dump the contents of <code>/etc/passwd</code> and <code>/etc/shadow</code> to enable offline password cracking.
attack.mitre.org →
T1005 Data from Local System Collection
Adversaries may search local system sources, such as file systems, configuration files, local databases, virtual machine files, or process memory, to find files of interest and sensitive data prior to Exfiltration.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-2995Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2023-5933Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2025-6195Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2024-0456Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2023-4018Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2024-0861Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2025-11990Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2026-93577Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2026-97229Same product: Gitlab Gitlab
CVE-2024-1947Same product: Gitlab Gitlab

Affected Assets

gitlab
gitlab
18.0.0 · 11.1.0 — 17.10.7 · 11.1.0 — 17.10.7 · 17.11.0 — 17.11.3

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V2.2.2
  • V4.2.3
  • V12.3.2

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SI-10 Information Input Validation good match

SI-10 requires validity checks on supplied inputs, directly stopping acceptance of internally inconsistent complex data.

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.

PR.PS-06 partial match
blocks

Secure SDLC practices directly require consistency validation for complex inputs.

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.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
blocks

A.8.25 mandates security requirements, checkpoints, secure coding, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a minority slice of consistency-validation defects when those practices are applied to input handling but leaves most instances (e.g. ad-hoc parsing, non-security requirements, post-SDLC changes) unaddressed.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
blocks

A.8.26 explicitly requires identifying and addressing input validation and consistency-related requirements (items j, m, n, and resilience against injections/disruptions in d), which when implemented stops exploitation of consistency-validation flaws even if the code defect remains.

A.8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles partial match
blocks

A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles including data validation/sanitization, distrust-external-input, secure design reviews against attack patterns, and zero-trust verification of requests; this directly stops most consistency-validation flaws from being introduced or exploitable, with a bounded remainder in implementation gaps or non-applicable outsourced components.

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly require validation of interrelated input fields to prevent CWE-1288.

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance partial match
finds

Security testing can detect consistency flaws but does not prevent them at design time.

A.8.8 Management of technical vulnerabilities partial match
removes

References