CVE-2025-21092
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 · uneditedGMOD Apollo does not have sufficient logical or access checks when updating a user's information. This could result in an attacker being able to escalate privileges for themselves or others.
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 confidenceGMOD Apollo lacks proper authorization checks in its user information update functionality. An authenticated attacker can manipulate user data to escalate their own privileges or grant elevated privileges to other users.
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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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 GMOD Apollo installation and versionLocate the GMOD Apollo installation directory or check running services. Identify the installed version from version files, about pages, or the application binary.Affected if The installed version matches or precedes the vulnerable version range for this CVE.
-
Verify user authentication is enabledCheck the application configuration for user authentication settings. Confirm that user accounts can be created and that the login functionality is active.Affected if User authentication is enabled, as this CVE requires an authenticated attacker to exploit the authorization flaw.
-
Inspect user update API or form endpointExamine the user profile update functionality (HTTP endpoints, form handlers, or API routes). Review the code or configuration that handles modifications to user information and privilege fields.Affected if The update mechanism accepts privilege-related fields (role, access_level, permissions) without validating that the requester is an administrator.
-
Check for role-based access control enforcementReview the authorization logic in user modification endpoints. Determine whether the application verifies the requesting user's role before allowing changes to privilege fields.Affected if The application allows non-administrative users to modify their own or others' privilege levels without proper authorization checks.
-
Audit existing user privilege assignmentsQuery the user database or admin panel to review current user roles and privilege levels. Look for unexpected elevated accounts that may indicate prior exploitation.Affected if Any user possesses elevated privileges they should not have, or privilege escalation has occurred.
A defender is affected if GMOD Apollo is installed with user authentication enabled and the user update functionality lacks proper authorization controls on privilege modification.
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 robust access control validation ensuring users can only modify their own profile data and only administrators can modify privilege levels.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-21092 — 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-2025-21092 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