CVE-2025-26485
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 vulnerability in Beta80 Life 1st enables the retrieval of different error messages for failed authentication attempts (in case of the usage of a wrong password or a non existent user). The difference in the returned error messages could be used by attackers to understand whether a certain user is registered in the Identity Manager. This issue affects Life 1st: 1.5.2.14234.
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 confidenceBeta80 Life 1st 1.5.2.14234 contains a user enumeration vulnerability where the authentication system returns distinct error messages for invalid passwords versus non-existent users, allowing attackers to confirm which accounts are registered in the Identity Manager.
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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Confirm Beta80 Life 1st installationLocate and identify the Beta80 Life 1st application instance in your environment. Note the installed version number.Affected if Version is 1.5.2.14234 or falls within the affected range.
-
Test authentication with valid username and wrong passwordAttempt to log in using an account you believe may exist on the system with an intentionally incorrect password. Capture and record the exact error message returned by the authentication system.Affected if Error message is specific (e.g., 'Invalid password', 'Wrong password', or similar indicating the user exists but password is wrong).
-
Test authentication with non-existent usernameAttempt to log in using a username that definitely does not exist in your system (e.g., a random string like 'nonexistentuser123'). Capture and record the exact error message returned.Affected if Error message is returned and is distinct from the message in step 2.
-
Compare authentication error messagesReview both captured error messages side by side. Determine if they are identical, semantically different, or provide different levels of detail about why authentication failed.Affected if The error messages differ in content or specificity - the system reveals whether the username exists versus only the password being wrong.
If the authentication system returns measurably different error messages for incorrect passwords versus non-existent usernames, the user enumeration vulnerability is present in your environment.
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 dataStandardize authentication error messages to always return the same response (e.g., 'Invalid credentials') regardless of whether the username exists or the password is incorrect, preventing user enumeration.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-26485 — 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-2025-26485 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