CVE-2025-48282
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 · uneditedMissing Authorization vulnerability in Majestic Support Majestic Support majestic-support allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Majestic Support: from n/a through <= 1.1.0.
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 confidenceMissing authorization vulnerability in Majestic Support allows attackers to exploit incorrectly configured access control security levels. The application fails to properly enforce authorization checks, potentially permitting unauthorized access to resources or functionality.
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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Majestic Support versionLocate the application version in the software itself (typically in admin panel, about page, or version file)Affected if Version cannot be determined or is unpatched
-
Review access control security level configurationNavigate to admin settings and examine security level or access control configuration filesAffected if Security levels are set to permissive or misconfigured values allowing elevation
-
Verify authorization enforcement on sensitive endpointsAttempt to access restricted functionality with a low-privilege user accountAffected if Unauthorized access is granted to protected resources
-
Inspect user role permission mappingsCheck the role-based access control (RBAC) settings in the administration panelAffected if Roles have permissions they should not possess
-
Audit API or service endpoints for missing authorization checksReview endpoint configurations and test with unauthenticated or unauthorized requestsAffected if Endpoints accept requests without proper authorization validation
User is affected if the installed Majestic Support version lacks proper authorization enforcement and security level configurations permit unauthorized access to restricted functionality.
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 and enforce proper authorization checks across all endpoints and functionality. Review and correct access control security level configurations to ensure users can only access resources they are explicitly authorized to access.
- 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-2025-48282 — 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-2025-48282 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