CVE-2025-41078
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 · uneditedWeaknesses in the authorization mechanisms of Viafirma Documents v3.7.129 allow an authenticated user without privileges to list and access other user data, use user creation, modification, and deletion features, and escalate privileges by impersonating other users of the application in the generation and signing of documents.
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 confidenceBroken access control vulnerability in Viafirma Documents v3.7.129 where authenticated users without proper privileges can bypass authorization checks to access other users' data, perform user management operations (create/modify/delete), and impersonate other users during document generation and signing workflows.
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< 3.7.139< 1.9.2CVSS 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
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 Viafirma Documents versionAccess the admin console (typically /viafirma/admin or /management/about), or inspect the deployed application WAR file for version metadata in META-INF/MANIFEST.MF or WEB-INF/classes/version.propertiesAffected if Version is below 3.7.139
-
Check Viafirma Documents Compose versionCheck the module version in the admin interface under component status or module information, or inspect the compose module JAR for version in META-INF/MANIFEST.MF or version.propertiesAffected if Version is below 1.9.2
-
Test user management API authorizationUsing a non-administrator authenticated user account, attempt to invoke user management endpoints such as POST /api/user/create, PUT /api/user/{id}/update, or DELETE /api/user/{id} and observe if requests succeedAffected if Authenticated user with standard privileges can create, modify, or delete user accounts
-
Test cross-user document accessAs a standard authenticated user, attempt to access document signing workflows or view documents belonging to different users by manipulating userId or documentId parameters in API requestsAffected if Authenticated user can access, view, or sign documents owned by other users
Environment is affected if either product version falls below the fixed releases AND authenticated users without admin privileges can access other users' data or perform user management operations.
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 · scoped1.9.23.7.139
Implement comprehensive role-based access control (RBAC) with explicit permission verification at every API endpoint handling user data, user management functions, and document signing operations; enforce server-side authorization checks independent of client-supplied parameters.
Documents: upgrade to 3.7.139 or later | Documents Compose: upgrade to 1.9.2 or later
- 1. Review Viafirma Documents release notes for version 3.7.139 to understand changes and any migration requirements
- 2. Review Viafirma Documents Compose release notes for version 1.9.2
- 3. Create a full backup of the current Viafirma Documents installation including database and configuration
- 4. If using Documents Compose module, ensure both components will be updated together
- 5. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first to verify the authorization fixes work correctly
- 6. Apply the upgrade to production environment following standard change management procedures
- 7. After upgrade, verify that privilege escalation is no longer possible by testing with a low-privilege user account
- 8. Confirm users can no longer access data or impersonate other users without proper authorization
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-41078 — 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-2025-41078 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