CVE-2025-23974
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 ifkooo One-Login one-login allows Privilege Escalation.This issue affects One-Login: from n/a through <= 1.4.
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 · low confidenceThe vulnerability is an Incorrect Privilege Assignment issue in ifkooo One-Login, an authentication/SSO product, that allows a user to escalate their privileges beyond what they should have. This is a broken access control vulnerability in the privilege assignment mechanism.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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 ifkooo One-Login versionCheck the product version through the admin console, command line interface, or configuration file. Consult product documentation for the exact version location if unsure.Affected if The installed version is lower than the patched version provided by ifkooo
-
Review user role assignmentsAccess the admin panel or user management interface to list all users and their assigned roles. Export or document the current role configuration.Affected if Users possess roles or privileges that exceed what they should legitimately have based on their job function
-
Audit privilege assignment mechanismExamine the role-based access control (RBAC) configuration or privilege mapping settings in the product. Check for any custom role definitions or privilege escalation rules.Affected if The privilege assignment mechanism allows users to obtain higher privileges than intended or assigned
-
Test for unauthorized privilege escalationUsing a low-privilege test account, attempt to access admin functions or higher-privileged features that should be restricted. Document any successful unauthorized access.Affected if A standard or low-privilege user can access administrative or elevated functions
If the installed version predates the vendor patch AND users have more privileges than intended, the environment is affected
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 dataContact ifkooo for the patched version and apply it. In the interim, review user role assignments and implement least-privilege access controls.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-23974 — 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-2025-23974 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