CVE-2025-26347
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 · uneditedA CWE-306 "Missing Authentication for Critical Function" in maxprofile/menu/routes.lua in Q-Free MaxTime less than or equal to version 2.11.0 allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to edit user permissions via crafted HTTP requests.
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 · high confidenceA critical authentication bypass exists in maxprofile/menu/routes.lua of Q-Free MaxTime versions 2.11.0 and prior. The route handler responsible for editing user permissions lacks any authentication verification, allowing any unauthenticated remote attacker to send crafted HTTP requests that modify user permission settings.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 2.11.0CVSS 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 MaxTime installation and versionLocate the MaxTime application and determine its installed version by checking the application metadata, About page, or version file. Common locations may include the installation directory or application configuration files.Affected if The installed version is 2.11.0 or prior, indicating the vulnerable version is present.
-
Locate the routes.lua fileSearch for the file maxprofile/menu/routes.lua within the MaxTime installation directory structure.Affected if The file exists at maxprofile/menu/routes.lua within the MaxTime installation, confirming the vulnerable component is present.
-
Inspect route handler for authenticationExamine the routes.lua file and identify the route handler responsible for editing user permissions. Review the code to determine if any authentication verification (such as session checks, token validation, or require_auth calls) is performed before allowing permission modifications.Affected if The permission editing route handler contains no authentication checks, meaning unauthenticated requests can modify user permissions.
-
Verify HTTP endpoint accessibilitySend a test HTTP request to the permission editing endpoint (typically /maxprofile/menu/ or similar path handling permission changes) without providing any authentication credentials. Observe whether the request is accepted or rejected.Affected if The endpoint accepts unauthenticated requests and processes permission modification commands without requiring valid authentication.
You are affected if MaxTime version 2.11.0 or prior is installed AND the routes.lua file exists with the permission editing route lacking authentication verification, allowing unauthenticated access to modify user permissions.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade to MaxTime version greater than 2.11.0, or implement authentication enforcement on the affected routes.lua endpoint to verify user identity before allowing permission modifications.
Maxtime version greater than 2.11.0 (contact Q-Free for the specific fixed release number)
- Identify the current Maxtime version installed in your environment
- Contact Q-Free official support or documentation to obtain the latest stable version that includes the security fix for CVE-2025-26347
- Plan an upgrade to a Maxtime version greater than 2.11.0 (the fixed release)
- Before upgrading, perform a full backup of the Maxtime configuration and database
- Schedule a maintenance window to minimize service disruption
- Execute the upgrade following Q-Free's official upgrade documentation
- After upgrade, verify that the maxprofile/menu/routes.lua component has been updated
- Test that authentication is now required for user permission modifications
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-26347 — 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-2025-26347 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