dbcve.org
Incorrect Permission AssignmentWeakness · CWE-732

CVE-2025-24481

HIGH · 7.0 CVSS v4.0 Published 2025-01-28
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
75/100
Remediation priority · High
No privileges 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
An Incorrect Permission Assignment Vulnerability exists in the product and version listed above. The vulnerability is due to incorrect permissions being assigned to the remote debugger port and can allow for unauthenticated access to the system configuration.

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

This vulnerability involves incorrect permissions assigned to a remote debugger port in the affected product and version. The misconfiguration allows unauthenticated attackers to access the system configuration through the exposed debugger interface.

MitigationRestrict access to the remote debugger port by implementing proper authentication and network-level access controls, or disable remote debugging if not required for production environments.

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
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:H/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. Identify if remote debugging is enabled
    Search running processes for debugger-related flags or ports. Common debugger ports: JDWP (5005), Node.js inspect (9229), .NET debugging. Use 'netstat -tlnp' or 'ss -tlnp' to find listening ports associated with debugging.
    Affected if A debugger port is listening and remote access is possible (bound to 0.0.0.0 or :: rather than 127.0.0.1)
  2. Verify debugger binding address
    Check the network configuration of the debugger port. Inspect the process startup script or environment variables to determine if the debugger binds to all interfaces (0.0.0.0) or localhost only.
    Affected if The debugger is bound to 0.0.0.0 or :: making it externally accessible
  3. Confirm authentication is disabled on debugger
    Review the debugger configuration for authentication settings. For Java JDWP, check for 'javaagent' or debug arguments lacking 'authenticate=true'. For Node.js, verify no token is required with --inspect.
    Affected if Authentication is explicitly disabled or not required for debugger connections
  4. Test unauthenticated debugger access
    Attempt to connect to the debugger port from an external host using appropriate debugging tools (jdb for Java, node inspect for Node.js) without providing credentials.
    Affected if Connection succeeds without any authentication challenge
  5. Review firewall rules for debugger ports
    Check iptables, nftables, or cloud security groups for inbound rules allowing traffic on debugger ports (5005, 9229, etc.) from untrusted networks.
    Affected if Firewall permits inbound connections to debugger ports from non-local networks

The environment is affected if a remote debugger port is exposed externally without authentication or network access controls.

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

Restrict access to the remote debugger port by implementing proper authentication and network-level access controls, or disable remote debugging if not required for production environments.

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-2025-24481 — 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-2025-24481 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