CVE-2025-10611
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 · uneditedDue to an insufficient access control implementation in multiple WSO2 Products, authentication and authorization checks for certain REST APIs can be bypassed, allowing them to be invoked without proper validation. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could lead to a malicious actor gaining administrative access and performing unauthenticated and unauthorized administrative operations.
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 confidenceMultiple WSO2 products contain insufficient access control that allows certain REST APIs to be invoked without proper authentication and authorization validation. This enables unauthenticated attackers to bypass security checks and gain administrative access to perform unauthorized administrative operations.
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= 4.5.0= 2.1.0= 2.2.0= 2.5.0= 2.6.0= 3.0.0= 3.1.0= 3.2.0= 3.2.1= 4.0.0= 4.1.0= 4.2.0= 4.3.0= 5.3.0= 5.5.0= 5.6.0= 5.7.0= 5.8.0= 5.9.0= 5.10.0= 5.11.0= 6.0.0= 6.1.0= 7.0.0= 7.1.0= 5.3.0= 5.5.0= 5.6.0= 5.7.0= 5.9.0= 5.10.0= 1.4.0= 1.5.0= 2.0.0= 2.0.0= 1.4.0= 1.5.0= 4.5.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 the installed WSO2 productCheck the product name and version from the installation directory. In the product home, examine the 'bin/wso2server.sh' or 'bin/wso2server.bat' script, or look for a 'carbon.sh' file. The version is often printed in the startup logs or can be found in a 'carbon.xml' or 'product-info.xml' file in the 'repository/conf' or 'conf' directory.Affected if The product matches one of the affected products (Api Control Plane, Api Manager, Identity Server, Identity Server As Key Manager, Open Banking Am, Open Banking Iam, Open Banking Km, or Traffic Manager) AND the version matches one of the listed affected versions.
-
Identify the product version preciselyLocate the version file in the installation. Common locations: 'repository/components/plugins' directory for JAR files named 'wso2carbon-*VERSION*.jar', or check 'repository/conf/etc/product-info.xml', or examine the 'carbon.xml' file in the configuration directory.Affected if The exact version matches any version listed in the affected versions for the product.
-
Verify REST API authentication is configuredReview the API authentication configuration files in the 'repository/conf/api' or 'conf/api' directory. Check for 'APIAuthentication.xml' or similar configuration files that define which APIs require authentication. Look for any API endpoint definitions that may allow anonymous access or lack proper authentication filters.Affected if Any REST API endpoints are configured to allow unauthenticated or anonymous access, particularly administrative APIs.
-
Check for exposed admin REST APIsExamine the 'repository/conf/registry.xml' or 'conf/registry.xml' and API definition files in 'repository/deployment/server/synapse-configs' or 'deployment/server/synapse-configs'. Look for API definitions (XML files) that expose admin operations. Use curl or a similar tool to attempt a request to common admin API paths like '/admin', '/api/admin', or product-specific admin endpoints without providing authentication headers.Affected if Administrative REST APIs can be invoked without valid authentication tokens or credentials.
You are affected if you are running any of the listed WSO2 products at the specified versions AND the product exposes REST APIs that can be accessed without authentication, allowing unauthorized administrative operations.
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 dataApply available security patches or updates provided by WSO2 for all affected products, and review API access control configurations to ensure proper authentication and authorization enforcement.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-10611 — 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-2025-10611 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