CVE-2025-26375
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-862 "Missing Authorization" in maxprofile/users/routes.lua in Q-Free MaxTime less than or equal to version 2.11.0 allows an authenticated (low-privileged) attacker to create users with arbitrary privileges 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 missing authorization vulnerability (CWE-862) in maxprofile/users/routes.lua of Q-Free MaxTime version 2.11.0 and below allows any authenticated user—even with low privileges—to create new users with arbitrary privilege levels by sending crafted HTTP requests to the user creation endpoint.
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
- 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 MaxTime installation and versionLocate the MaxTime installation directory and check the version number. Common paths may include /opt/maxtime, C:\Program Files\Q-Free\MaxTime, or within the application's about/info page. Run 'maxctl --version' or check the application's main executable/version file.Affected if The installed MaxTime version is 2.11.0 or lower.
-
Verify affected component existsCheck for the presence of the file maxprofile/users/routes.lua within the MaxTime installation directory. This file handles user management HTTP routes.Affected if The file maxprofile/users/routes.lua exists in the installation.
-
Confirm user management is enabledVerify the web interface or API exposes user management endpoints. Check if the /users or /user/create routes are accessible in the application's routing configuration.Affected if User management endpoints are exposed and accessible to authenticated users.
-
Review authorization on user creationInspect the routes.lua file or equivalent configuration for the user creation endpoint. Look for role verification logic (such as checks for admin or elevated privileges) before allowing user creation with specified privilege levels.Affected if The user creation endpoint allows authenticated users with low privileges to specify elevated roles without proper authorization validation.
A user is affected if they are running Q-Free MaxTime version 2.11.0 or lower with the user management interface accessible and the maxprofile/users/routes.lua component present without proper role-based authorization checks on the user creation endpoint.
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 authorization checks in the user creation route to verify the requesting user has sufficient privileges before allowing user creation with elevated roles.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $6,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-26375 — 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-2025-26375 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