Missing AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-862

CVE-2025-48139

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-06-09
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
74/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges 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
Missing Authorization vulnerability in relentlo StyleAI relentlosoftware allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects StyleAI: from n/a through <= 1.0.4.

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

Missing authorization vulnerability in StyleAI allows authenticated users to access functionality that should be constrained by access control lists (ACLs). This enables privilege escalation or unauthorized access to sensitive features without proper permission checks.

MitigationImplement proper authorization checks on all sensitive endpoints and functions, ensuring ACLs are enforced consistently across the application. Verify that all functionality properly validates user permissions before allowing access.

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

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

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

  1. Locate StyleAI installation and version
    Identify where StyleAI is installed (check common web application directories, package installations, or container images). Retrieve the installed version using package manager commands (e.g., pip show styleai, docker images, or checking VERSION/build files in the application root).
    Affected if The installed version cannot be determined or falls within an unpatched version range.
  2. Identify sensitive endpoints and ACL-protected functions
    Review application routing, API definitions, or codebase for endpoints marked as admin-only, privileged, or otherwise access-controlled. Common locations: route definitions, middleware configuration, permission decorators, or ACL configuration files.
    Affected if Sensitive endpoints exist but lack visible authorization checks (missing @require_permission, @admin_required decorators, or middleware enforcement).
  3. Test authorization enforcement on protected resources
    Using an authenticated but low-privilege user account, attempt to access suspected privileged endpoints or functions. Compare expected behavior against actual responses. Check HTTP status codes and whether sensitive data is returned.
    Affected if Low-privilege authenticated users can access resources or perform actions reserved for higher-privilege roles.
  4. Inspect access control configuration
    Examine ACL configuration files, role definitions, or permission matrices in the application. Look for gaps where sensitive features lack role or permission restrictions.
    Affected if ACL configuration exists but does not cover all sensitive functions, or allows authenticated users broader access than intended.
  5. Verify permission validation in code
    Review source code for sensitive functions to confirm authorization checks are present and correctly implemented before executing privileged operations.
    Affected if Sensitive functions execute without calling authorization validation routines, or checks can be bypassed.

A user is affected if StyleAI is running and authenticated users can access functionality that should be restricted by access controls, enabling privilege escalation or unauthorized access to sensitive features.

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

Implement proper authorization checks on all sensitive endpoints and functions, ensuring ACLs are enforced consistently across the application. Verify that all functionality properly validates user permissions before allowing access.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-48139 — 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-2025-48139 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