CVE-2025-47631
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 · uneditedIncorrect Privilege Assignment vulnerability in mojoomla Hospital Management System allows Privilege Escalation. This issue affects Hospital Management System: from 47.0(20 through 11.
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 confidenceIncorrect privilege assignment in mojoomla Hospital Management System allows authenticated users to escalate their privileges beyond what their assigned role should permit. This is a broken access control vulnerability where the application fails to properly enforce authorization checks at privilege-sensitive operations.
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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the installed Hospital Management System versionAccess the admin dashboard or system information page, or check the application footer/header for version number. If CLI access is available, check configuration files or database for version metadata.Affected if The installed version is version 11 or later (any version in this range is affected by the privilege escalation flaw)
-
Verify user role configuration in the databaseQuery the users or roles table in the database to review the role assignments for all user accounts. Look for any accounts with elevated roles that do not match expected administrative designations.Affected if Any authenticated user account has been assigned a higher privilege role than what was originally intended, or unexpected admin-level role assignments exist for non-admin users
-
Test for privilege escalation via accessible endpointsUsing a low-privilege authenticated user account, attempt to access administrative endpoints or execute administrative functions that should be restricted to admin roles. Common endpoints include /admin, /user-management, /settings, or API routes for system configuration.Affected if A non-administrative user account can access administrative functions, modify system settings, or view sensitive patient data beyond their authorized scope
-
Review audit logs for privilege escalation activityExamine system audit logs or access logs for records of privilege changes, administrative actions performed by standard users, or unauthorized access to sensitive healthcare records.Affected if Logs show administrative actions or privilege modifications performed by users who should not have such access
You are affected if the Hospital Management System version is 11 or higher and low-privilege authenticated users can access administrative functions or escalate their role permissions beyond what was assigned.
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 role-based access control (RBAC) with consistent authorization checks at every privilege-sensitive operation. Until a vendor patch is available, restrict administrative access to essential personnel and monitor for suspicious privilege escalation attempts.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-47631 — 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-2025-47631 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