Missing AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-862

CVE-2025-67584

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-12-09
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges 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
Missing Authorization vulnerability in rtCamp GoDAM godam allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects GoDAM: from n/a through <= 1.4.6.

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

Missing authorization vulnerability in rtCamp GoDAM plugin allows attackers to exploit incorrectly configured access control security levels. The plugin fails to properly enforce authorization checks, enabling unauthenticated or unauthorized users to access functionality they should not have permission to use.

MitigationImplement proper role-based access control (RBAC) checks and validate user permissions before executing sensitive operations in the GoDAM plugin.

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
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm GoDAM plugin is installed
    Check the WordPress plugins directory or admin panel for the rtCamp GoDAM plugin. Look for files in /wp-content/plugins/ directory containing 'godam' or 'rtcamp' in the name.
    Affected if The GoDAM plugin by rtCamp is present in the WordPress installation
  2. Identify the installed version
    Read the plugin main file (usually godam.php or similar) in /wp-content/plugins/godam/ to find the version declared in the plugin header comment.
    Affected if The installed version matches or falls within the affected version range (if known)
  3. Inspect access control configuration
    Examine the plugin settings in WordPress admin under GoDAM settings. Look for any security level, permission, or access control settings that can be configured by administrators.
    Affected if The plugin exposes configurable access control security levels that can be set to insecure values
  4. Test authorization enforcement on sensitive endpoints
    Use a tool like curl or Burp Suite to send requests to GoDAM plugin endpoints (such as ajax actions, API routes, or admin pages) without proper authentication tokens. Compare the response to authenticated requests.
    Affected if Unauthenticated or unauthorized requests succeed in accessing functionality that should require higher privileges
  5. Review user role capability mappings
    Inspect the plugin code for add_cap, role capability definitions, or map_meta_cap filters to understand what roles can perform what actions. Check if sensitive operations lack proper capability checks.
    Affected if The plugin allows operations without verifying user capabilities or allows low-privilege users to perform administrative actions

A user is affected if the GoDAM plugin is installed and its access control security levels are misconfigured or missing proper authorization checks, allowing unauthorized access to restricted functionality.

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 proper role-based access control (RBAC) checks and validate user permissions before executing sensitive operations in the GoDAM plugin.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-67584 — 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-2025-67584 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