CVE-2025-52553
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 · uneditedauthentik is an open-source identity provider. After authorizing access to a RAC endpoint, authentik creates a token which is used for a single connection and is sent to the client in the URL. This token is intended to only be valid for the session of the user who authorized the connection, however this check is missing in versions prior to 2025.6.3 and 2025.4.3. When, for example, using RAC during a screenshare, a malicious user could access the same session by copying the URL from the shown browser. authentik 2025.4.3 and 2025.6.3 fix this issue. As a workaround, it is recommended to decrease the duration a token is valid for (in the RAC Provider settings, set Connection expiry to `minutes=5` for example). The maintainers of authentik also recommend enabling the option Delete authorization on disconnect.
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 analysisThe mechanism that verifies who a user is can be side-stepped or fooled, letting an attacker act as someone they're not. Everything built on top of that identity then becomes untrustworthy. Fixing it means hardening the full authentication flow, including edge cases, tokens, and secondary paths.
General guidance for the improper authentication class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 2025.4.3>= 2025.6.0, < 2025.6.3CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
dbcve · scoped2025.4.32025.6.3
Authentik 2025.4.3 (if currently < 2025.4.3) or Authentik 2025.6.3 (if currently >= 2025.6.0 and < 2025.6.3)
- 1. Identify the currently running Authentik version by checking the system or documentation
- 2. If running Authentik < 2025.4.3 (but not in the 2025.5.x range), plan upgrade to version 2025.4.3
- 3. If running Authentik >= 2025.6.0 but < 2025.6.3, plan upgrade to version 2025.6.3
- 4. Review the Authentik upgrade documentation for your deployment method (Docker, Kubernetes, etc.)
- 5. Create a backup of the current Authentik installation and database before upgrading
- 6. Perform the upgrade to the appropriate fixed version (2025.4.3 or 2025.6.3)
- 7. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the Authentik version in the admin interface
- 8. As an additional precaution, in RAC Provider settings verify 'Delete authorization on disconnect' is enabled
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-52553 — 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-2025-52553 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