CVE-2025-48063
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 · uneditedXWiki is a generic wiki platform. In XWiki 16.10.0, required rights were introduced as a way to limit which rights a document can have. Part of the security model of required rights is that a user who doesn't have a right also cannot define that right as required right. That way, users who are editing documents on which required rights are enforced can be sure that they're not giving a right to a script or object that it didn't have before. A bug in the implementation of the enforcement of this rule means that in fact, it was possible for any user with edit right on a document to set programming right as required right. If then a user with programming right edited that document, the content of that document would gain programming right, allowing remote code execution. This thereby defeats most of the security benefits of required rights. As XWiki still performs the required rights analysis when a user edits a page even when required rights are enforced, the user with programming right would still be warned about the dangerous content unless the attacker managed to bypass this check. Note also that none of the affected versions include a UI for enabling the enforcing of required rights so it seems unlikely that anybody relied on them for security in the affected versions. As this vulnerability provides no additional attack surface unless all documents in the wiki enforce required rights, we consider the impact of this attack to be low even though gaining programming right could have a high impact. This vulnerability has been patched in XWiki 16.10.4 and 17.1.0RC1. No known workarounds are available except for upgrading.
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 analysisThe application confirms who you are but does not properly check whether you are permitted to perform a given action, so authenticated users reach functions or data meant for others. Attackers test roles and object references to find the gap. Remediation is an authorization check on every request, evaluated against the acting user's actual permissions.
General guidance for the improper authorization class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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>= 16.10.0, < 16.10.4= 17.0.0CVSS 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
- 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
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.
dbcve · scoped16.10.4
XWiki 16.10.4 or 17.1.0+ (select based on your current major version branch)
- Determine your current XWiki version by checking the XWiki administration or the version page
- If running 16.10.0 through 16.10.3, upgrade to XWiki 16.10.4 or later in the 16.x line
- If running XWiki 17.0.0, upgrade to XWiki 17.1.0 or later in the 17.x line
- After upgrade, verify the required rights feature works correctly by testing document permission configurations
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-48063 — 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-2025-48063 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