CVE-2025-15656
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 · uneditedIncorrect Privilege Assignment vulnerability in Mojoomla School Management allows Privilege Escalation. This issue affects School Management: from n/a through 93.2.0.
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 confidenceAn Incorrect Privilege Assignment vulnerability in Mojojula School Management allows authenticated users to escalate their privileges beyond what their role should permit, likely due to improper validation of user roles or authorization checks during sensitive operations.
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
- 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.
-
Identify the installed version of Mojojala School ManagementCheck the application footer, admin dashboard 'About' page, or version.php/config file in the installation directory for the version numberAffected if The version cannot be determined or is within an unpatched version range
-
Verify role-based access control is in useAccess the user management or role management section of the admin panel and confirm multiple user roles exist (e.g., student, teacher, staff, admin)Affected if The application uses role-based access control and assigns different privilege levels to users
-
Test for privilege escalation from a non-admin accountLog in with a standard user account (non-admin role) and attempt to access administrative functions such as user management, system settings, or sensitive data pages directly via URL or navigationAffected if A non-admin authenticated user can access or modify administrative functions they should not have permission to access
-
Review privilege assignment configurationExamine the application's database tables or configuration files related to user roles and permissions (often named like 'user_roles', 'permissions', or 'role_capabilities')Affected if Users are assigned privilege levels that differ from what their role should logically permit, or permission records show inconsistent role-to-privilege mappings
-
Check for unauthorized admin access in logsReview application access logs or audit trails for instances where accounts with non-admin roles accessed administrative endpoints or performed administrative actionsAffected if Logs show non-admin accounts performing administrative actions or accessing admin-only areas
The environment is affected if the installed version is unpatched AND authenticated users with non-administrator roles can access or execute administrative functions beyond their assigned privileges.
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 the vendor patch (version 93.2.1 or later) to remediate the privilege assignment flaw. Until then, restrict administrative access to only trusted personnel and monitor for unauthorized privilege escalation attempts.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-15656 — 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-2025-15656 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