CVE-2025-42989
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 · uneditedRFC inbound processing�does not perform necessary authorization checks for an authenticated user, resulting in escalation of privileges. On successful exploitation the attacker could critically impact both integrity and availability of the application.
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 confidenceRFC inbound processing in the affected application fails to perform proper authorization validation for authenticated users, allowing an authenticated attacker to bypass access controls and escalate privileges to perform actions beyond their assigned role. The vulnerability critically impacts system integrity and availability.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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 RFC inbound processing componentsReview system architecture documentation or network configuration to locate components that handle RFC inbound requests. Check for RFC listeners, gateways, or API endpoints that accept inbound RFC calls.Affected if The system processes RFC inbound calls and no per-function authorization checks are configured
-
Verify RFC authorization configurationInspect RFC security configuration files or settings to confirm whether authorization validation is enforced for each RFC function module. Look for flags like Check Authorization or Authority-Check settings on RFC destinations.Affected if Authorization validation is disabled or set to permissive for RFC inbound functions
-
Audit authenticated user role assignmentsQuery user management system to list all roles assigned to authenticated users who can initiate RFC calls. Compare assigned roles against granted permissions.Affected if Users have roles that allow RFC execution without additional permission checks
-
Review RFC function module permissionsExamine the authorization objects associated with RFC function modules that can be called remotely. Check if the S_RFC authorization object is properly configured with restrictive values.Affected if RFC function modules allow execution without proper S_RFC authorization checks
-
Inspect RFC call logs for privilege escalation patternsAnalyze security audit logs or RFC trace files for calls executing functions beyond the callers documented role permissions.Affected if Logs show authenticated users executing privileged functions outside their assigned role scope
System is affected if it processes RFC inbound calls and lacks per-function authorization validation for authenticated users.
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 comprehensive authorization checks within RFC inbound processing to validate user permissions before executing requested functions, ensuring least-privilege enforcement and proper role-based access control validation.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-42989 — 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-2025-42989 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