Missing AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-862

CVE-2025-69181

HIGH · 7.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-01-22
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
82/100
Remediation priority · High
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 e-plugins Lawyer Directory lawyer-directory allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Lawyer Directory: from n/a through <= 1.3.4.

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 the e-plugins Lawyer Directory WordPress plugin allows unauthorized users to exploit incorrectly configured access control security levels, potentially enabling unauthorized access to sensitive lawyer data or administrative functions that should be restricted to privileged users.

MitigationImplement proper role-based access control (RBAC) checks and authorization validation on all sensitive functions and data access points within the plugin, ensuring that users can only access resources they are explicitly permitted to access.

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
Low
Availability
Low

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

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 Lawyer Directory plugin is installed
    Navigate to WordPress admin dashboard, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins, and locate the 'Lawyer Directory' plugin by e-plugins. Note the installed version number if visible.
    Affected if The plugin is installed and active on the WordPress site.
  2. Identify plugin version for comparison
    Check the plugin version displayed in the plugins list, or examine the plugin header in the main plugin file (typically in /wp-content/plugins/lawyer-directory/ directory) to retrieve the Version attribute.
    Affected if The installed version cannot be determined or falls within an affected version range (if such ranges become available).
  3. Review user role and capability settings
    Go to WordPress admin > Users > Roles and Capabilities (or use a role editor plugin) to examine what roles have access to Lawyer Directory features. Check if any roles other than Administrator have elevated permissions.
    Affected if Users without administrative privileges have been granted access to sensitive lawyer data or administrative functions.
  4. Test access to sensitive plugin endpoints
    Using a browser or HTTP tool (such as curl), attempt to access common plugin endpoints (such as wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=get_lawyers or similar data retrieval URLs) while logged out or as a low-privilege user.
    Affected if Sensitive data or administrative functions are accessible without proper authentication or authorization.
  5. Inspect plugin configuration for authorization controls
    Examine the plugin settings pages in WordPress admin for any access control, role-based access, or permission settings. Look for options that control who can view or edit lawyer data.
    Affected if No role-based access control options exist, or the plugin allows public/unauthenticated access to sensitive data.

A site is affected if the Lawyer Directory plugin is installed and allows unauthorized users to access sensitive lawyer data or administrative functions that should be restricted to privileged users.

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 authorization validation on all sensitive functions and data access points within the plugin, ensuring that users can only access resources they are explicitly permitted to access.

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-2025-69181 — 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-2025-69181 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