CVE-2025-26377
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 remove users 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 confidenceCWE-862 Missing Authorization vulnerability in maxprofile/users/routes.lua of Q-Free MaxTime version 2.11.0 and below allows any authenticated user, even with low privileges, to remove other users by sending crafted HTTP requests to the affected endpoint, bypassing intended access control checks.
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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 the MaxTime installationLocate the Q-Free MaxTime application installation and determine its version number from the application metadata, startup banner, or version file.Affected if The installed version is MaxTime version 2.11.0 or below.
-
Locate the affected source fileFind the maxprofile/users/routes.lua file within the MaxTime installation directory.Affected if The file exists in the installation, indicating the vulnerable code is present.
-
Verify the user removal endpoint existsInspect routes.lua and identify the endpoint handler responsible for removing users from the system.Affected if The endpoint handler for user removal is defined and accessible.
-
Check authorization logic in the removal handlerExamine the user removal endpoint code to see if role-based authorization checks are performed before executing user removal operations.Affected if The code lacks proper role verification or privilege checks before allowing user removal.
-
Confirm low-privilege user accessTest whether an authenticated user with low privileges (non-administrator) can send HTTP requests to the user removal endpoint and successfully remove other users.Affected if Low-privilege users can remove other users without proper authorization.
The environment is affected if MaxTime version 2.11.0 or below is installed and the user removal endpoint in maxprofile/users/routes.lua lacks proper role-based authorization checks, allowing any authenticated user to remove others.
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 role-based authorization checks in the affected routes.lua file to verify that only users with appropriate administrative privileges can remove other users, validating permissions before executing removal operations.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-26377 — 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-2025-26377 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