Missing AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-862

CVE-2025-49990

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-06-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
62/100
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 contentstudio Contentstudio contentstudio allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects Contentstudio: from n/a through <= 1.3.7.

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 in Contentstudio allows attackers to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs. The vulnerability exists in versions through 1.3.7, where certain endpoints or application functions lack proper access control checks, potentially enabling unauthorized users to perform actions restricted to authenticated or privileged users.

MitigationUpdate Contentstudio to a version beyond 1.3.7 when available, or audit all endpoints and functionality to identify and enforce proper ACL constraints on 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
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 checks

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

  1. Determine Contentstudio installation version
    Locate the version information for your Contentstudio installation. Check package files (package.json, composer.json, or similar), the application itself (often visible in admin panels or /about pages), or the deployed application files. Compare the found version against the affected range (1.3.7 and below).
    Affected if The installed version is 1.3.7 or any version below 1.3.7.
  2. Identify exposed application endpoints
    Review your Contentstudio deployment to enumerate available HTTP endpoints, API routes, or application functions. This can be done by reviewing application documentation, accessing the application routing configuration, or using web vulnerability scanning tools to map the attack surface.
    Affected if Sensitive administrative, user management, or data access endpoints exist and are accessible without proper authentication checks.
  3. Test endpoint access controls
    Attempt to access identified endpoints with different user contexts: (1) without any authentication (as an anonymous user), (2) as a regular authenticated user with limited privileges, and (3) as an administrator. Compare the responses and actions allowed for each context.
    Affected if Endpoints return unauthorized or restricted content, or allow privileged actions (such as user management, content deletion, or configuration changes) when accessed without proper authentication or with insufficient privileges.
  4. Review ACL configuration
    Examine Contentstudio's access control configuration files, database ACL tables, or permission settings to verify that role-based or user-based restrictions are properly defined and enforced on sensitive operations.
    Affected if ACL rules are missing, misconfigured, or not applied to sensitive endpoints or functions, allowing unauthorized access.

You are affected if your Contentstudio version is 1.3.7 or lower AND unauthenticated or low-privilege users can access or perform actions restricted to authenticated or privileged users.

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

Update Contentstudio to a version beyond 1.3.7 when available, or audit all endpoints and functionality to identify and enforce proper ACL constraints on sensitive operations.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-49990 — 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-2025-49990 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