CVE-2025-68869
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 · uneditedIncorrect Privilege Assignment vulnerability in LazyCoders LLC LazyTasks lazytasks-project-task-management allows Privilege Escalation.This issue affects LazyTasks: from n/a through <= 1.2.37.
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 confidenceLazyTasks project management software versions up to 1.2.37 contain an Incorrect Privilege Assignment vulnerability allowing authenticated or possibly unauthenticated users to escalate their privileges beyond what their assigned role should permit, potentially gaining administrative or higher-level access to the system.
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
- 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.
-
Identify LazyTasks versionLocate the installed LazyTasks instance and check its version number in the application interface, configuration files, or software metadata. Common locations include the About page, version.txt, or package.json if self-hosted.Affected if The installed version is 1.2.37 or any earlier version (1.x.x up to 1.2.37).
-
Determine application network exposureVerify whether the LazyTasks application is accessible from public networks or the internet. Check firewall rules, reverse proxy configuration, and network ACLs that control access to the application host.Affected if The application is directly exposed to the internet or untrusted networks without proper authentication gating.
-
Review user account role assignmentsAudit the existing user accounts in LazyTasks and document each user's assigned role. Compare the documented role against the actual permissions the user can exercise within the application.Affected if Users possess roles that permit actions beyond what their assigned role should authorize, or if lower-privileged users can access administrative functions.
-
Inspect authentication mechanismExamine how LazyTasks handles authentication and session management. Look for endpoints or parameters that may allow bypassing role validation or role checks during request processing.Affected if The application lacks proper role-based access control (RBAC) validation on sensitive operations, or authentication can be circumvented.
A defender is affected if their LazyTasks installation is version 1.2.37 or earlier AND the application is accessible to users beyond the intended trusted group, or if unauthorized privilege escalation is observed in user accounts.
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 dataImmediately restrict the application from public exposure, audit user role assignments and permissions, and implement proper role-based access control (RBAC) validation throughout the application; consider upgrading to version 1.2.38 or later if a patched release is available, or applying vendor-supplied security controls.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-68869 — 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-2025-68869 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