dbcve.org
Improper AuthenticationWeakness · CWE-287

CVE-2025-52395

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-08-21
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
An issue in Roadcute API v.1 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the application exposing a password reset API endpoint that fails to validate the identity of the requester properly

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

The Roadcute API v1 exposes a password reset endpoint that fails to properly validate the requester's identity, allowing remote attackers to potentially execute arbitrary code. This is an authentication bypass vulnerability in the password reset flow.

MitigationImplement proper identity validation on the password reset endpoint (e.g., require current password, email verification with time-limited tokens, or multi-factor authentication) before allowing any password change.

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 Roadcute API version
    Review your API deployment documentation or check the running service version banner. If self-hosted, inspect the installed package or container image tag for 'roadcute' and confirm the version is v1 or matches the v1 release lineage.
    Affected if The installed version is Roadcute API v1 or any v1.x release that contains the password reset functionality.
  2. Locate the password reset endpoint
    Inspect your API routing configuration or OpenAPI/Swagger spec for endpoints that handle password reset or forgotten password flows (typically paths like /api/v1/password/reset, /auth/reset, or similar).
    Affected if A password reset endpoint exists and is exposed in the API routing configuration.
  3. Verify endpoint accessibility
    Send a test HTTP request to the password reset endpoint without including any authentication headers or tokens. Use a tool like curl: curl -X POST https://your-api-host/password-reset-endpoint -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{"username":"testuser"}'
    Affected if The endpoint responds without rejecting the request due to missing or invalid authentication.
  4. Check for identity verification in reset flow
    Inspect the password reset implementation code or API logic to determine if the request requires secondary verification (e.g., token, security question, MFA) before accepting a new password. Look for validation routines that verify the requester identity before processing the reset.
    Affected if No secondary identity verification is required before the password can be changed - the endpoint accepts a new password directly from an unauthenticated request.
  5. Confirm user enumeration is possible
    Use the password reset endpoint with different usernames to observe whether the API returns different responses for valid vs invalid users (e.g., 'user not found' vs 'reset email sent').
    Affected if The endpoint reveals whether a given username is valid, allowing an attacker to enumerate existing accounts.

If Roadcute API v1 is running and the password reset endpoint accepts unauthenticated requests without requiring secondary identity verification before processing a password change, the environment is affected by CVE-2025-52395.

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 identity validation on the password reset endpoint (e.g., require current password, email verification with time-limited tokens, or multi-factor authentication) before allowing any password change.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
28.0 hours of engineering $4,880
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,808.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-52395 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2025-52395 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