CVE-2024-31525
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedPeppermint Ticket Management 0.4.6 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control. A regular registered user is able to elevate his privileges to admin and gain complete access to the system as the authorization mechanism is not validated on the server side and only on the client side. This can result, for example, in creating a new admin user in the system which enables persistent access for the attacker as an administrator.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidencePeppermint Ticket Management 0.4.6 has Incorrect Access Control where the application only performs authorization checks on the client side (e.g., hiding UI elements) but fails to validate user permissions on the server side. This allows any authenticated regular user to directly invoke administrative API endpoints and escalate privileges to admin, enabling creation of new admin users for persistent access.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Peppermint Ticket Management installationLocate the Peppermint application directory or check running services for 'peppermint' or ticket management components. Look for package.json, composer.json, or the application binary.Affected if Peppermint Ticket Management version 0.4.6 is installed and running
-
Confirm installed versionCheck the application's version file, package.json version field, or the login page/version endpoint. Compare against 0.4.6.Affected if Version is exactly 0.4.6
-
Verify server-side authorization exists for admin endpointsInspect the backend code for API routes handling administrative functions (user creation, role assignment). Look for middleware or decorators that validate user roles server-side before executing privileged operations.Affected if No server-side role/permission validation is found in admin API route handlers; only client-side UI hiding is present
-
Test if regular user can invoke admin APILog in as a non-admin (regular) user and attempt to call administrative API endpoints directly (e.g., POST /api/users or similar endpoint that creates admin users) using curl or Burp Suite, bypassing client-side restrictions.Affected if Regular authenticated user can successfully invoke admin API endpoints and create new admin users without server rejecting the request based on role
A user is affected if Peppermint Ticket Management 0.4.6 is installed and the server does not validate user roles/permissions before executing administrative actions, allowing any authenticated user to escalate privileges via direct API calls.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement server-side authorization validation for all privileged operations, ensuring the server verifies the user's role and permissions before executing any administrative action regardless of client-side checks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-31525 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-31525 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data