CVE-2025-7347
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 · uneditedAuthorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in Dinibh Puzzle Software Solutions Dinibh Patrol Tracking System allows Exploitation of Trusted Identifiers. This issue affects Dinibh Patrol Tracking System: through 10022026. NOTE: The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 Dinibh Patrol Tracking System contains an authorization bypass vulnerability where user-controlled keys (such as session tokens, user IDs, or other identifiers) are trusted without proper validation. Attackers can exploit this by manipulating these trusted identifiers to access functionality or data they are not authorized 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 user-controllable input parametersReview application endpoints and capture requests using a proxy (Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP). Look for parameters that contain identifiers such as IDs, usernames, email addresses, record numbers, or object references in URLs, headers, or request bodies.Affected if The application uses predictable identifiers (numeric IDs, sequential IDs, usernames) in requests that can be modified by the user.
-
Map user session boundariesCreate two or more distinct user accounts with different privilege levels. Log in as each user and capture authentication tokens, session cookies, or API keys. Document which resources each user should legitimately access.Affected if Multiple user accounts exist and the application uses session-based or token-based authentication.
-
Test for unauthorized cross-user accessWhile authenticated as User A, modify identifier parameters in requests to reference resources belonging to User B (e.g., change user_id=1 to user_id=2 in API calls, URLs, or form data). Observe the HTTP response.Affected if User A can retrieve, modify, or delete data belonging to User B by changing identifier values without receiving a 403 Forbidden or authorization error.
-
Verify server-side authorization logicExamine application source code or API logic to determine whether every request that accesses a resource performs a server-side check confirming the current user owns or has permission for that specific resource identifier.Affected if The application relies solely on client-side checks, hidden fields, or trust in user-supplied identifiers without validating ownership server-side.
-
Check for privilege escalation vectorsModify role, permission, or group identifiers in requests while authenticated as a lower-privilege user. Submit requests with elevated roles or administrative identifiers.Affected if A standard user can gain access to administrative functions or elevated privileges by supplying a different role or privilege-level identifier.
A user is affected if the application allows modification of identifier parameters (IDs, object references, usernames) to access or manipulate resources belonging to other users without proper server-side authorization validation.
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 validation of all user-supplied identifiers and enforce strict authorization checks at every access point. Until a vendor patch is available, consider network-level restrictions or compensating controls.
- Consultation12.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $16,896.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-7347 — 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-2025-7347 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