CVE-2025-23528
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 Mosterd3d DD Roles dd-roles allows Privilege Escalation.This issue affects DD Roles: from n/a through <= 4.1.
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 confidenceThis is an Incorrect Privilege Assignment vulnerability in the Mosterd3d DD Roles (dd-roles) component that allows a user to escalate their privileges beyond what should be permitted. The vulnerability exists in versions up to and including 4.1, where the role-based access control logic improperly assigns or does not correctly enforce role permissions.
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 dd-roles installationSearch your codebase, dependencies, or plugin manifest for the 'dd-roles' or 'Mosterd3d DD Roles' component. Check package.json, requirements.txt, or equivalent dependency file if this is a software project.Affected if The dd-roles component is present in your environment
-
Determine installed versionCheck the version number of dd-roles in your dependency lock file, installed packages list, or the component's version property. Compare it to the affected range of versions up to and including 4.1.Affected if The installed version is 4.1 or lower, or the version cannot be determined but dd-roles is present
-
Verify role-based access control is in useInspect your application configuration, settings, or database to confirm that dd-roles RBAC functionality is actively enabled. Look for role definitions, permission assignments, or role mappings in your config files.Affected if RBAC features of dd-roles are enabled and being used to control user permissions
-
Inspect role assignment configurationReview the role configuration files or database records where user-to-role mappings are stored. Check for any custom role definitions or permission overrides that may allow privilege escalation beyond intended limits.Affected if Users are assigned roles through dd-roles and the assignment logic is in place
Your environment is affected if the dd-roles component is installed with a version of 4.1 or lower and its role-based access control is actively configured or in use.
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 dataUpdate DD Roles to a patched version beyond 4.1 that corrects the privilege assignment logic. Review and audit existing role configurations to ensure no unauthorized privilege escalation has occurred.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-23528 — 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-2025-23528 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