CVE-2025-5962
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 · uneditedA flaw was found in the Lightspeed history service. Insufficient access controls allow a local, unprivileged user to access and manipulate the chat history of another user on the same system. By abusing inter-process communication calls to the history service, an attacker can view, delete, or inject arbitrary history entries, including misleading or malicious commands. This can be used to deceive another user into executing harmful actions, posing a risk of privilege misuse or unauthorized command execution through social engineering.
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 confidenceThe Lightspeed history service contains insufficient access control validation in its inter-process communication (IPC) interface, allowing a local unprivileged attacker to access and manipulate another user's chat history entries through direct IPC calls.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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 if Lightspeed history service is installedSearch for the Lightspeed history service process or executable using system process lists (e.g., tasklist on Windows, ps on Linux) or check installed applications for 'Lightspeed' with history service componentAffected if The Lightspeed history service is found running on the system
-
Check IPC interface accessibilityLocate IPC communication endpoints (sockets, named pipes, or message queues) used by the history service. Common locations include /tmp, /var/run, or application-specific directories. Use 'ls -la' or equivalent to view permissions on these IPC resourcesAffected if IPC endpoints are accessible to unprivileged users (world-readable/writable or group-accessible by non-admin users)
-
Verify user isolation on IPC handlersExamine the history service configuration files or attempt a test IPC call from an unprivileged user context to see if cross-user access is blocked. Check if the service validates user identity before processing IPC requestsAffected if Unprivileged users can send IPC commands to access or modify data belonging to other users
-
Confirm chat history storage is shared or per-userInspect the data storage location for chat histories (database files, storage directories) and verify if they are stored in user-specific paths with proper permissions, or in a shared location without user-based access controlsAffected if Chat history data is stored in a shared location accessible across user contexts without proper isolation
Your environment is affected if the Lightspeed history service is running and its IPC interface allows unprivileged local users to access or manipulate chat history data belonging to other users.
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 user context validation and authorization checks in all IPC handlers within the history service to ensure users can only access their own data.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-5962 — 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-2025-5962 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