CVE-2024-13041
Gitlab 16.4.0 – 17.5.5
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-13041 is a medium-severity Incorrect User Management (CWE-286) vulnerability in Gitlab Gitlab. Its CVSS base score is 4.2 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 19th 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 AC-2 (Account Management) and IA-4 (Identifier Management) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-51297
Vulnerability Data
An issue was discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions starting from 16.4 prior to 17.5.5, starting from 17.6 prior to 17.6.3, and starting from 17.7 prior to 17.7.1. When a user is created via the SAML provider, the external…
more
groups setting overrides the external provider configuration. As a result, the user may not be marked as external thereby giving those users access to internal projects or groups.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-2 directly requires defining, assigning, and controlling user accounts throughout their lifecycle, structurally preventing improper user management.
IA-4 mandates authorized management of user identifiers, stopping the creation or retention of unmanaged user identities.
PS-4 enforces timely disabling and removal of access upon termination, addressing a key failure mode of incorrect ongoing user management.
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.
Access control policies rely on accurate user management but do not themselves define user lifecycle processes.
A.5.16 directly governs identity lifecycle (unique binding, timely disable/remove, no duplicates, oversight of shared/non-human) which stops most incorrect-user-management flaws from being exploitable; bounded remainder exists for flawed access-rights assignment logic after identity is issued (belongs to A.8.3).
A.5.18 directly governs the full provisioning, review, adjustment and timely revocation lifecycle for access rights (including segregation, authorization, activation only after approval, and pre-termination review), which stops most incorrect-user-management cases from being exploitable; the bounded remainder is flawed user-lifecycle logic inside the product itself that the organizational process cannot reach.
A.6.5 defines post-termination responsibilities, confidentiality duties, role handovers and communication processes; it has no bearing on whether a product correctly manages users in its environment, so the weakness can still be present and exploitable.
A.8.2 directly controls allocation, review, expiry, temporary use, separate identities and higher authentication for privileged rights per 5.15 policy, which stops most incorrect-user-management cases (e.g. over-provisioned or stale privileges) from being exploitable; the bounded remainder is incorrect management that is not privilege-related at all (e.g. ordinary user creation, password resets, or account lockout logic).
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-286, a class-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-842.