CVE-2025-4118
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 classified as critical has been found in Weitong Mall 1.0.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /historyList of the component Product History Handler. The manipulation of the argument isDelete with the input 1 leads to improper access controls. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
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 confidenceA critical IDOR (Insecure Direct Object Reference) vulnerability in Weitong Mall 1.0.0 allows remote attackers to delete product history entries via manipulation of the isDelete parameter (value=1) in the /historyList endpoint without any authentication or authorization, indicating a complete failure of access control enforcement.
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= 1.0.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Identify Weitong Mall versionCheck the application's version number in the source code, configuration files, or application metadata (often found in pom.xml, package.json, or the application's about/info page)Affected if The installed version is 1.0.0 exactly
-
Locate the /historyList endpointSearch the application source code for the /historyList route definition, typically in a controller or route configuration fileAffected if The /historyList endpoint exists in the application routing
-
Verify endpoint accessibilityAttempt an HTTP request to the /historyList endpoint without providing any authentication credentialsAffected if The endpoint responds to unauthenticated requests (returns 200 OK or any valid response rather than 401/403)
-
Check isDelete parameter handlingInspect the source code handling the /historyList request to see how the isDelete parameter is processed, or send a request with isDelete=1 without authorizationAffected if The isDelete parameter is accepted and processed without verifying user ownership or permissions on the history records
A user is affected if Weitong Mall version 1.0.0 is installed and the /historyList endpoint accepts unauthenticated requests with the isDelete=1 parameter to delete history entries.
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 authentication and server-side authorization checks to verify user ownership/permissions before allowing deletion operations on product history records. Validate all input parameters server-side and enforce principle of least privilege.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-4118 — 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-2025-4118 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