dbcve.org
Information ExposureWeakness · CWE-200

CVE-2025-22138

MEDIUM · 5.1 CVSS v4.0 Published 2025-01-13
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
58/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
@codidact/qpixel is a Q&A-based community knowledge-sharing software. In affected versions when a category is set to private or limited-visibility within QPixel's admin tools, suggested edits within this category can still be viewed by unprivileged or anonymous users via the suggested edit queue. This issue has not yet been patched and no workarounds are available. Users are advised to follow the development repo for updates. ### Patches Not yet patched. ### Workarounds None available. Private or limited-visibility categories should not be considered ways to store sensitive information. ### References Internal: [SUPPORT-114](https://codidact.atlassian.net/issues/SUPPORT-114)

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 confidence

In @codidact/qpixel, suggested edits within private or limited-visibility categories can be accessed by unprivileged or anonymous users through the suggested edit queue, bypassing the intended access controls for those categories. This represents a broken access control vulnerability where category visibility settings are not properly enforced when rendering the suggested edit queue.

MitigationUntil a patch is available, avoid storing sensitive information in private or limited-visibility categories and monitor access logs for unauthorized access to suggested edit endpoints. Consider implementing application-level IP restrictions as a temporary protective measure.

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
None
Authentication
X
User interaction
A
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm qpixel installation and version
    Locate the qpixel application codebase or running service. Check package.json, Gemfile, or the running application for its version number. Compare the installed version against the upstream repository to determine if it includes the fix for CVE-2025-22138.
    Affected if The application is running codidact/qpixel and the version predates the security fix for this access control issue.
  2. Verify suggested edit queue is enabled
    Check the application configuration for the suggested edit queue feature flag or module. In qpixel, this is typically controlled via the Rails configuration or feature flags in config/boot.rb or config/application.rb.
    Affected if The suggested edit queue feature is enabled and accessible to users.
  3. Examine category visibility settings
    Review the database or admin interface for categories marked as private or limited-visibility. Query the categories table for rows where visibility_level or equivalent column is set to restricted/private. Check config/models/category.rb for visibility rules.
    Affected if Private or limited-visibility categories exist in the system.
  4. Test suggested edit queue access controls
    As an anonymous or unprivileged user, attempt to access the suggested edit queue endpoint (typically /suggested-edits or /reviews). Then attempt to view suggested edits specifically belonging to private/limited-visibility categories. Verify if the system returns the private category edits without proper authorization.
    Affected if Unprivileged or anonymous users can view suggested edits belonging to private categories through the queue.
  5. Review access logs for unauthorized access patterns
    Examine web server and application logs for requests to suggested edit endpoints from unauthenticated or low-privilege users. Look for patterns where access to /suggested-edits or similar routes originates from IPs without elevated privileges.
    Affected if Logs show unauthenticated or unprivileged users successfully accessing the suggested edit queue.

A user is affected if they run codidact/qpixel with the suggested edit queue enabled and have private or limited-visibility categories, where anonymous or unprivileged users can access suggested edits in those restricted categories.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Until a patch is available, avoid storing sensitive information in private or limited-visibility categories and monitor access logs for unauthorized access to suggested edit endpoints. Consider implementing application-level IP restrictions as a temporary protective measure.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-22138 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-22138 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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