CVE-2025-46745
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 · uneditedAn authenticated user without user-management permissions could view other users account information.
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 confidenceThis is an IDOR (Insecure Direct Object Reference) or broken access control vulnerability where an authenticated user lacking user-management permissions can still view other users' account information. The application's authorization logic fails to properly enforce permission boundaries when accessing user data.
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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 the application's user management moduleLocate the module or endpoint that handles user data retrieval (e.g., /users, /api/users, user-profile endpoints). Review the codebase for routes that accept user IDs as parameters.Affected if The application exposes endpoints that accept user identifiers without additional context.
-
Confirm role-based access control existsCheck the application for role or permission definitions (e.g., roles like 'admin', 'user', 'manager'). Verify if a permission model exists that distinguishes between regular users and users with user-management privileges.Affected if The application has a role system but lacks explicit user-management permission checks.
-
Test unauthorized access with a low-privilege accountCreate or obtain a test account without user-management permissions. Authenticate as this user and attempt to access user data belonging to a different user by modifying URL parameters, API request bodies, or headers that reference other user IDs.Affected if The request succeeds and returns data for a user other than the authenticated user.
-
Review authorization logic in user data endpointsInspect the code handling user data retrieval requests. Trace the permission validation path to see if user-management permission is checked before returning user account information.Affected if The code lacks a permission check, or the check is bypassed, commented out, or only enforced on certain code paths.
A user without user-management permissions can retrieve account details of other users by manipulating user identifiers in requests.
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 to verify user-management permissions before allowing access to other users account information. Ensure all user data access paths enforce the same permission validation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46745 — 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-2025-46745 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