CVE-2025-55261
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 · uneditedHCL Aftermarket DPC is affected by Missing Functional Level Access Control which will allow attacker to escalate his privileges and may compromise the application and may steal and manipulate the data.
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 confidenceHCL Aftermarket DPC contains a Missing Functional Level Access Control vulnerability that allows attackers to bypass authorization checks and access functionality intended for higher-privileged users. This IDOR-like flaw enables privilege escalation, giving unauthenticated or low-privileged attackers the ability to execute administrative functions and access sensitive data.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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= 1.0.0CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify installed version of HCL Aftermarket CloudCheck the application version through the admin panel, system information page, or version file in the installation directory. Common locations include version.properties, about page, or API endpoint /api/versionAffected if The installed version is exactly 1.0.0 (this specific version is affected)
-
Identify administrative or privileged functionsReview the application for administrative endpoints, APIs, or functions that should be restricted to higher-privileged users. Look for admin/, manage/, or privileged/ path patterns in the web applicationAffected if The application exposes administrative functions without visible role restrictions or requires lower-privileged accounts to access them
-
Inspect user role assignments and permissionsCheck the user management section to see how roles are assigned and whether low-privileged or unauthenticated users can be assigned elevated roles. Look for default role configurationsAffected if Users with low-privileged or default accounts can access or modify roles beyond their assigned permission level
-
Test access control on sensitive endpointsAttempt to access administrative functions, data export features, or user management areas using an unauthenticated or low-privileged account. Compare responses to authorized requestsAffected if Unauthenticated or low-privileged users can successfully access endpoints intended only for administrators
A user is affected if running HCL Aftermarket Cloud version 1.0.0 and the application allows unauthorized access to administrative functions or privileged operations without proper role verification.
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 comprehensive authorization checks at every functional level, enforce role-based access control (RBAC) on all endpoints, and validate user permissions before executing any privileged operation.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation20.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,288.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-55261 — 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-2025-55261 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