CVE-2025-28103
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 · uneditedIncorrect access control in laskBlog v2.6.1 allows attackers to arbitrarily delete user accounts via a crafted request.
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 confidencelaskBlog v2.6.1 contains an incorrect access control vulnerability that allows unauthenticated or unauthorized attackers to delete arbitrary user accounts by sending crafted requests to account deletion functionality. The application fails to properly verify that the requesting user has sufficient privileges to delete the target account, representing a classic IDOR or broken access control issue.
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= 2.6.1CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Check installed Flaskblog versionInspect the application's version file, setup.py, requirements.txt, or version configuration to determine if the deployed version is 2.6.1Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.6.1
-
Locate the account deletion endpointSearch the application source code for routes or views handling user account deletion (look for terms like 'delete', 'remove', 'account' in routing definitions)Affected if An account deletion endpoint exists in the application
-
Inspect authorization logic on deletion endpointExamine the account deletion route handler code to verify if it checks whether the requesting user has permission to delete the target user account (look for user ID validation, session checks, or permission checks before deletion executes)Affected if The deletion endpoint lacks proper authorization checks or allows any user to delete any account by manipulating request parameters
-
Test unauthenticated access to deletion functionalitySend a crafted HTTP request to the deletion endpoint without authentication credentials or with a different user's session to verify if the operation executes without authorizationAffected if The deletion functionality executes without requiring authentication or valid authorization
Your environment is affected if you are running Flaskblog version 2.6.1 and the account deletion endpoint is accessible without proper authorization checks that verify the requester has permission to delete the specific target account.
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 on all account deletion endpoints to verify the requesting user has permission to delete the specific target account. Consider adding role-based access control (RBAC) and implementing CSRF protection for state-changing operations.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-28103 — 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-2025-28103 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