Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.39% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2023
CVE-2023-50713High confidence
Speckle Server API Token Privilege Escalation
specklesystems · speckle-server
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-XPF3-5Q5X-3QWH ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
6.5MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Patch availableMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs specklesystems speckle-server and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Speckle Server provides server, frontend, 3D viewer, and other JavaScript utilities for the Speckle 3D data platform. A vulnerability in versions prior to 2.17.6 affects users who: authorized an application which requested a 'token write' scope or, using frontend-2, created a Personal Access Token (PAT) with `token write` scope. When creating a new token an agent needs to authorise the request with an existing token (the 'requesting token'). The requesting token is required to have token write scope in order to generate new tokens. However, Speckle server was not verifying that other privileges granted to the new token were not in excess of the privileges of the requesting token. A malicious actor could use a token with only token write scope to subsequently generate further tokens with additional privileges. These privileges would only grant privileges up to the existing privileges of the user. This vulnerability cannot be used to escalate a user's privileges or grant privileges on behalf of other users. This has been patched as of version 2.17.6. All operators of Speckle servers should upgrade their server to version 2.17.6 or higher. Any users who authorized an application with 'token write' scope, or created a token in frontend-2 with `token write` scope should review existing tokens and permanently revoke any they do not recognize, revoke existing tokens and create new tokens, and review usage of their account for suspicious activity. No known workarounds for this issue exist.
What
Speckle Server provides server, frontend, 3D viewer, and other JavaScript utilities for the Speckle 3D data platform. A vulnerability in versions prior to 2.17.6 affects users who: authorized an application which requested a 'token write' scope or, using frontend-2, created a Personal Access Token (PAT) with `token write` scope. When creating a new token an agent needs to authorise the request with an existing token (the 'requesting token'). The requesting token is required to have token write scope in order to generate new tokens. However, Speckle server was not verifying that other privileges granted to the new token were not in excess of the privileges of the requesting token. A malicious actor could use a token with only token write scope to subsequently generate further tokens with additional privileges. These privileges would only grant privileges up to the existing privileges of the user. This vulnerability cannot be used to escalate a user's privileges or grant privileges on behalf of other users. This has been patched as of version 2.17.6. All operators of Speckle servers should upgrade their server to version 2.17.6 or higher. Any users who authorized an application with 'token write' scope, or created a token in frontend-2 with `token write` scope should review existing tokens and permanently revoke any they do not recognize, revoke existing tokens and create new tokens, and review usage of their account for suspicious activity. No known workarounds for this issue exist.
Why
The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system from untrusted agents. However, implemented access controls lack required granularity, which renders the control policy too broad because it allows accesses from unauthorized agents to the security-sensitive assets.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Speckle Server provides server, frontend, 3D viewer, and other JavaScript utilities for the Speckle 3D data platform. A vulnerability in versions prior to 2.17.6 affects users who: authorized an application which requested a 'token write' scope or, using frontend-2, created a Personal Access Token (PAT) with `token write` scope. When creating a new token an agent needs to authorise the request with an existing token (the 'requesting token'). The requesting token is required to have token write scope in order to generate new tokens. However, Speckle server was not verifying that other privileges granted to the new token were not in excess of the privileges of the requesting token. A malicious actor could use a token with only token write scope to subsequently generate further tokens with additional privileges. These privileges would only grant privileges up to the existing privileges of the user. This vulnerability cannot be used to escalate a user's privileges or grant privileges on behalf of other users. This has been patched as of version 2.17.6. All operators of Speckle servers should upgrade their server to version 2.17.6 or higher. Any users who authorized an application with 'token write' scope, or created a token in frontend-2 with `token write` scope should review existing tokens and permanently revoke any they do not recognize, revoke existing tokens and create new tokens, and review usage of their account for suspicious activity. No known workarounds for this issue exist.
Why
The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system from untrusted agents. However, implemented access controls lack required granularity, which renders the control policy too broad because it allows accesses from unauthorized agents to the security-sensitive assets.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Insufficient Granularity of Access Control → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-1220 ↗
CWE-1220: Insufficient Granularity of Access Control. The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system from untrusted agents. However, implemented access controls lack required granularity, which renders the control policy too broad because it allows accesses from unauthorized agents to the security-sensitive assets.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- speckle-server: < 2.17.6
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 14 Dec 2023 · Last source change 2 Aug 2024, 22:16 UTC · CWE-1220 · Insufficient Granularity of Access Control
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2023-55486
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.