Incorrect Permission AssignmentWeakness · CWE-732

CVE-2025-62688

HIGH · 7.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-10-23
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
73/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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 incorrect permission assignment for a critical resource vulnerability was discovered in Productivity Suite software version 4.4.1.19. The vulnerability allows an attacker with low-privileged credentials to change their role, gaining full control access to the project.

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

A critical permission assignment vulnerability in Productivity Suite v4.4.1.19 allows authenticated low-privileged users to escalate their privileges by modifying their role assignment, bypassing authorization controls and gaining full project administration access.

MitigationImplement strict server-side role-based access control (RBAC) validation ensuring users cannot elevate their own permissions beyond what is explicitly permitted for their account tier, and audit all permission modification endpoints.

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 Productivity Suite installation
    Locate the Productivity Suite application and determine its installed version. Check the application manifest, about page, or version file (common locations: installation directory, config file, or application metadata).
    Affected if The installed version matches v4.4.1.19 or falls within the affected version range.
  2. Verify user role modification capability
    Access the user profile or role assignment settings within Productivity Suite as a low-privileged authenticated user. Attempt to modify your own role or permission level through the UI or API endpoint.
    Affected if Low-privileged users can modify their own role assignment to a higher privileged role (e.g., project administrator) without proper authorization validation.
  3. Inspect role-based access control enforcement
    Review the application configuration files or RBAC implementation to confirm whether server-side validation exists for permission modification requests. Check endpoint handlers that process role changes.
    Affected if Server-side RBAC validation is missing, weak, or can be bypassed when users submit role modification requests.
  4. Review permission modification audit logs
    Examine Productivity Suite audit logs, access logs, or security event logs for any recent role assignment changes, particularly those elevating low-privileged users to administrator roles.
    Affected if Audit logs show unauthorized privilege escalation events or role modifications performed by non-administrator accounts.

A user is affected if Productivity Suite v4.4.1.19 is installed and low-privileged authenticated users can modify their own role assignments to gain elevated (project administrator) access without proper server-side authorization checks.

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 strict server-side role-based access control (RBAC) validation ensuring users cannot elevate their own permissions beyond what is explicitly permitted for their account tier, and audit all permission modification endpoints.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-62688 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-62688 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