CVE-2025-24924
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 · uneditedCertain functionality within GMOD Apollo does not require authentication when passed with an administrative username
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 confidenceGMOD Apollo has an authentication bypass vulnerability where certain privileged functions accept an administrative username parameter without verifying the corresponding authentication credentials. This allows unauthenticated attackers to invoke administrative functionality by simply specifying an admin-level username.
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
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/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 GMOD Apollo installationLocate the GMOD Apollo application directory or check running processes for 'apollo' or 'gmod' related servicesAffected if GMOD Apollo is present in the environment
-
Determine installed versionCheck version information in application metadata, about page, or binary/version file. Compare against any available version records for the product.Affected if Version cannot be determined or is within an unpatched release range
-
Review authentication mechanism for privileged endpointsInspect server-side code or API endpoints that handle administrative functions. Look for functions that accept a username parameter for privileged operations without requiring session token, password, or other credential verification.Affected if Administrative functions accept username parameter alone without validating corresponding authentication credentials
-
Test for unauthenticated admin function invocationIf safe to do in a non-production environment, attempt to invoke administrative functionality by specifying an admin username without providing valid authentication credentialsAffected if Administrative functions execute when username is provided without valid authentication tokens or passwords
-
Check authentication middleware coverageReview authentication middleware or security filters applied to all sensitive endpoints. Identify any endpoints that lack proper credential validation.Affected if Some administrative endpoints lack consistent authentication middleware or credential verification
A user is affected if GMOD Apollo is running and administrative functions can be invoked by simply specifying an admin username without providing valid authentication credentials.
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 dataImplement proper credential verification for all privileged operations - authentication checks must validate session tokens or passwords, not just accept username parameters. Enforce consistent authentication middleware across all sensitive endpoints.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-24924 — 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-2025-24924 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