OrangehrmApplication

CVE-2025-44040

HIGH · 7.2 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-05-21
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
78/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
An issue in OrangeHRM v.5.7 allows an attacker to escalate privileges via UserService.php and the checkForOldHash function. Authentication decisions may be made via PHP loose-equality comparisons if a specific MD5 value is present in the credential store. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because an adversary has no way to place the specific MD5 value into the credential store (unless they already have full privileges) and because the specific MD5 value would not realistically be present otherwise.

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 confidence

OrangeHRM v5.7 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability in UserService.php's checkForOldHash function. The issue stems from PHP loose-equality (type juggling) comparisons being used for authentication decisions when a specific MD5 hash value exists in the credential store. The vendor disputes the issue, claiming the MD5 value cannot be placed in the credential store without already having full administrative privileges.

MitigationUpgrade to a patched version of OrangeHRM if available. If no patch exists, remediate by replacing all loose-equality (==) comparisons with strict-equality (===) in authentication-related code, particularly in UserService.php. Additionally, review credential storage mechanisms for unauthorized access vectors.

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
OrangehrmApplication
Affected:= 5.7

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
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify OrangeHRM installation version
    Check the version file or admin panel about section for OrangeHRM version number
    Affected if Version is exactly 5.7 (Orangehrm Orangehrm: = 5.7)
  2. Locate UserService.php file
    Search for UserService.php in the OrangeHRM installation directory, typically under src/orangehrm directory
    Affected if File exists and contains the checkForOldHash function
  3. Examine checkForOldHash function for loose comparisons
    Open UserService.php and locate the checkForOldHash function, inspect for use of == (loose equality) rather than === (strict equality) in authentication logic
    Affected if Function uses == comparisons for authentication decisions
  4. Inspect credential storage for MD5 hash
    Examine the database or credential store where password hashes are stored, look for the specific MD5 hash value referenced in the vulnerability
    Affected if The specific MD5 hash value exists in the credential store
  5. Verify authentication flow uses checkForOldHash
    Review the authentication flow to confirm checkForOldHash is called during login and its result influences authentication decisions
    Affected if checkForOldHash is invoked and its output affects authentication outcomes

Environment is affected if running OrangeHRM version 5.7 with the checkForOldHash function using loose-equality comparisons and the specific MD5 hash present in credentials.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade to a patched version of OrangeHRM if available. If no patch exists, remediate by replacing all loose-equality (==) comparisons with strict-equality (===) in authentication-related code, particularly in UserService.php. Additionally, review credential storage mechanisms for unauthorized access vectors.

Fix this in Orangehrm Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-44040 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-44040 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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