CVE-2025-52800
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 Unity Business Technology Pty Ltd The E-Commerce ERP profitori allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects The E-Commerce ERP: from n/a through <= 2.1.1.3.
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 The E-Commerce ERP (profitori) allows users to access functionality that should be restricted by Access Control Lists (ACLs). This broken access control enables authenticated users to perform actions outside their intended permission level.
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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Identify The E-Commerce ERP (profitori) installationLocate the profitori application installation directory or check running processes for 'profitori' or 'ecommerce-erp' componentsAffected if The product is installed and running in the environment
-
Determine installed versionCheck the application's version information through its UI (typically in About/Help menu), configuration files, or package metadataAffected if The installed version is any release of The E-Commerce ERP (profitori) that contains the ACL bypass vulnerability
-
Review user role assignmentsAccess the user management or role management section of the application and enumerate all defined roles and their assigned usersAffected if Multiple roles exist with different permission levels, indicating ACLs are in use
-
Inspect ACL configurationExamine the application's access control settings, permissions matrix, or security configuration area to identify which functions are restricted to specific rolesAffected if The application implements role-based access controls that define restricted functionality
-
Test cross-role access attemptsLog in with a user assigned to a lower-privileged role and attempt to access functions designated for higher-privileged rolesAffected if A lower-privileged authenticated user can successfully perform actions reserved for higher-privilege roles (ACL bypass confirmed)
-
Verify permission checks on sensitive operationsUse application debugging or network inspection to observe whether the application validates user permissions before executing sensitive functionsAffected if Sensitive operations execute without proper permission validation checks
The environment is affected if The E-Commerce ERP (profitori) is installed and allows an authenticated user with limited privileges to access or execute functions restricted to higher-privilege roles.
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 role-based and function-level access controls across all sensitive endpoints and operations. Verify that every function validates user permissions before executing privileged actions.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-52800 — 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-2025-52800 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