Incorrect Privilege AssignmentWeakness · CWE-266

CVE-2025-22736

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-01-15
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
94/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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
Incorrect Privilege Assignment vulnerability in Saad Iqbal User Management user-management allows Privilege Escalation.This issue affects User Management: from n/a through <= 1.2.

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

A privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Saad Iqbal User Management system (versions up to 1.2) where incorrect privilege assignment allows authenticated users to gain elevated access beyond what they should have. The vulnerability stems from improper authorization logic that fails to properly restrict user privileges.

MitigationReview and correct the privilege assignment logic in the user management system to ensure proper role-based access control enforcement. Implement strict validation that users can only access privileges explicitly assigned to their role.

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 checks

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

  1. Identify the installed version of the User Management system
    Locate the application version in the system documentation, installation files, or configuration. Check for a version file, about page, or query the database for version metadata if available.
    Affected if The installed version is 1.2 or any version below 1.2 (1.2, 1.1, 1.0, etc.)
  2. Verify user authentication is enabled
    Confirm that the user login and authentication module is active. Check if user accounts exist in the system and if users can log in.
    Affected if User authentication is enabled and there are active user accounts in the system
  3. Inspect user role and privilege assignments in the database
    Query the database tables that store user roles and privileges (such as users, roles, user_roles, or privileges tables). Look for any unexpected role assignments or privilege levels that do not match the intended role hierarchy.
    Affected if Users are assigned to roles or privileges that exceed what their assigned role should normally provide
  4. Review the authorization logic in application source code
    Examine the code handling role-based access control. Look for functions that assign or validate user privileges. Check for missing or weak conditional checks that determine privilege levels.
    Affected if The privilege assignment logic lacks proper validation or can be manipulated to assign higher privileges than intended
  5. Test for unauthorized access to elevated functions
    Log in as a standard or low-privilege user and attempt to access administrative features, settings, or actions that should be restricted to higher-privileged roles.
    Affected if A standard authenticated user can access or execute functions that should require elevated privileges

The environment is affected if it runs version 1.2 or below of the Saad Iqbal User Management system with authentication enabled, and the privilege assignment logic allows users to gain access beyond their assigned role.

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

Review and correct the privilege assignment logic in the user management system to ensure proper role-based access control enforcement. Implement strict validation that users can only access privileges explicitly assigned to their role.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-22736 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-22736 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