CVE-2025-10390
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 · uneditedA weakness has been identified in CRMEB up to 5.6.1. The affected element is the function editAddress of the file app/services/user/UserAddressServices.php. Executing manipulation of the argument ID can lead to improper authorization. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 · moderate confidenceThis is an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability in CRMEB's address management functionality. The editAddress function in UserAddressServices.php fails to verify that the address being edited belongs to the authenticated user, allowing attackers to manipulate the ID parameter to modify or access arbitrary user addresses.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 5.6.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Confirm CRMEB installationSearch for CRMEB files or check application metadata to verify the system is running Crmeb CrmebAffected if The system is confirmed to be running Crmeb Crmeb
-
Locate UserAddressServices.phpFind the UserAddressServices.php file in the application source code, typically in the services or app directoryAffected if The file exists in the application
-
Identify editAddress functionOpen UserAddressServices.php and locate the editAddress function definitionAffected if The editAddress function exists in the file
-
Inspect address ID validation logicExamine the editAddress function code to check if it verifies that the authenticated user owns the address ID being modified. Look for user ID or address owner checks before performing the edit operationAffected if The function does NOT verify that the current user owns the address ID before allowing modification
-
Check for similar issues in other address functionsReview other address-related functions in the same file (such as deleteAddress, getAddress) for similar lack of ownership validationAffected if Other address functions also lack proper ownership checks
A user is affected if their CRMEB installation is version 5.6.1 or lower and the editAddress function in UserAddressServices.php lacks ownership verification for the address ID parameter.
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 proper authorization checks in the editAddress function to verify that the address ID belongs to the requesting user before allowing any modifications.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-10390 — 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-2025-10390 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