CVE-2025-49236
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 raychat Raychat raychat allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects Raychat: from n/a through <= 2.1.0.
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 Raychat allows users to access functionality not properly constrained by Access Control Lists (ACLs). This is a broken access control issue where certain sensitive functions or resources can be reached without proper authorization checks. An attacker could potentially access administrative functions or data they should not have permission to view or modify.
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.
-
Confirm Raychat installation and versionLocate the Raychat application directory or check running services. Look for version identifiers in application metadata files, package.json, or the main application entry point.Affected if Raychat is installed and running but you cannot verify the installed version falls outside any patched version range.
-
Identify authentication mechanismReview Raychat's authentication configuration files or code to determine how user sessions are managed. Check for session tokens, JWT implementation, or other auth mechanisms.Affected if The application relies on an authentication mechanism that does not enforce authorization checks on sensitive endpoints.
-
Test sensitive endpoint access without credentialsAttempt to access known sensitive endpoints such as /admin, /settings, /users, /api/admin, or similar paths without providing valid authentication credentials.Affected if Sensitive endpoints return successful responses or allow interaction without valid authorization tokens.
-
Verify role-based access control enforcementCreate or use accounts with different privilege levels. Attempt to access functions or data that should be restricted to higher-privilege roles using a lower-privilege account.Affected if Lower-privilege accounts can access or modify resources intended for administrative or higher-privilege roles.
-
Inspect ACL configurationLocate and review Access Control List (ACL) configuration files or authorization middleware within the Raychat codebase. Check which endpoints have authorization checks defined.Affected if Sensitive endpoints or administrative functions lack defined ACL rules or authorization middleware.
Your environment is affected if Raychat is installed and sensitive endpoints or administrative functions can be accessed without proper authorization validation, regardless of user privilege level.
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 (ACLs) on all sensitive functionality. Audit all endpoints and functions to ensure proper access controls are enforced for all user roles. The fix requires reviewing the authorization mechanism and adding checks where they are missing.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-49236 — 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-2025-49236 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