Improper Access ControlWeakness · CWE-284

CVE-2025-52101

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-07-01
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
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
linjiashop <=0.9 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control. When using the default-generated JWT authentication, attackers can bypass the authentication and retrieve the encrypted "password" and "salt". The password can then be obtained through brute-force cracking.

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

linjiashop versions 0.9 and below contains an Incorrect Access Control vulnerability in its default-generated JWT authentication implementation. Attackers can bypass authentication mechanisms entirely and retrieve encrypted password and salt values from the system. These credentials can then be subjected to brute-force cracking to obtain plaintext passwords.

MitigationUpgrade linjiashop beyond version 0.9 to obtain the patched JWT authentication implementation. In the interim, avoid default JWT configurations and implement additional authentication safeguards such as IP-based restrictions or multi-factor authentication.

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
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

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

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. Identify linjiashop version
    Locate the version file, build configuration, or project metadata (such as pom.xml, package.json, or a version.txt) in the linjiashop deployment directory. Read the declared version number.
    Affected if The declared version is 0.9 or lower.
  2. Locate JWT configuration files
    Search the application deployment for configuration files that define JWT settings. Common locations include application.properties, application.yml, or a dedicated security config class. Look for entries containing 'jwt', 'secret', or 'token'.
    Affected if JWT configuration files exist and contain a default or hardcoded JWT secret, or no custom JWT secret is defined.
  3. Verify JWT secret strength
    Open the JWT configuration and examine the secret key value. Determine if it matches a known default value, is missing entirely, or is a weak/blank value.
    Affected if The JWT secret is set to a default value, left empty, or uses a weak/keyless configuration.
  4. Test authentication bypass
    Send an HTTP request to a protected endpoint (such as /api/user or /api/admin) with a manipulated, missing, or malformed JWT token. Observe whether the application returns user data, password hashes, or salt values instead of rejecting the request.
    Affected if The application returns sensitive user credential data (encrypted passwords or salts) without valid authentication.
  5. Check for exposed credential endpoints
    Review API documentation or enumerate accessible endpoints. Attempt to access routes that should require authentication, such as user profile or admin panels, without providing credentials.
    Affected if Sensitive endpoints return password or salt data without requiring valid JWT authentication.

You are affected if linjiashop version is 0.9 or below AND the default JWT configuration is in use, allowing unauthenticated access to password and salt data.

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

Upgrade linjiashop beyond version 0.9 to obtain the patched JWT authentication implementation. In the interim, avoid default JWT configurations and implement additional authentication safeguards such as IP-based restrictions or multi-factor authentication.

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-2025-52101 — 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-2025-52101 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