CVE-2025-7974
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 · uneditedrocket.chat Incorrect Authorization Information Disclosure Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to disclose sensitive information on affected installations of rocket.chat. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the web service, which listens on TCP port 3000 by default. The issue results from incorrect authorization. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to disclose information in the context of the application. Was ZDI-CAN-26517.
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 confidenceRocket.Chat has an incorrect authorization vulnerability in its web service (TCP port 3000) that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to disclose sensitive information by bypassing authorization checks.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 7.4.0, < 7.4.4>= 7.5.0, < 7.5.3>= 7.6.0, < 7.6.4>= 7.7.0, < 7.7.2> 7.7.2, < 7.8.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm Rocket.Chat is running on TCP port 3000Run 'netstat -tlnp | grep 3000' or 'ss -tlnp | grep 3000' to check if the Rocket.Chat web service is listening on port 3000Affected if Port 3000 is open and listening for Rocket.Chat connections
-
Identify installed Rocket.Chat versionCheck the version via the API endpoint '/api/info' or by examining the package.json file in the Rocket.Chat installation directory if you have filesystem accessAffected if The version returned falls within any of these ranges: >=7.4.0 and <7.4.4, >=7.5.0 and <7.5.3, >=7.6.0 and <7.6.4, >=7.7.0 and <7.7.2, or >7.7.2 and <7.8.0
-
Test unauthenticated access to sensitive endpointsSend HTTP GET requests to common API endpoints without providing authentication credentials (such as /api/v1/users, /api/v1/rooms, or /api/v1/settings) using curl or a similar toolAffected if The server returns sensitive information (user data, room data, or configuration settings) without requiring any login token or session
-
Verify if the web service is exposed to unauthenticated usersCheck network configuration to determine whether port 3000 is accessible from untrusted networks, or attempt to access the Rocket.Chat API from an unauthenticated contextAffected if The Rocket.Chat web interface or API is reachable without authentication from a non-localhost source
You are affected if Rocket.Chat is running on port 3000, the installed version falls within any of the vulnerable ranges, and unauthenticated endpoints return sensitive information.
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.
dbcve · scoped7.4.47.5.37.6.4
Apply available vendor patches for Rocket.Chat and ensure proper authorization controls are enforced on all endpoints, particularly those accessible without authentication.
Rocket.chat 7.7.2 (or respective 7.4.4, 7.5.3, 7.6.4 based on your current version branch)
- 1. Identify current Rocket.chat version by checking the application or using command line tools
- 2. Review the upgrade path: if on 7.4.x upgrade to 7.4.4, if on 7.5.x upgrade to 7.5.3, if on 7.6.x upgrade to 7.6.4, if on 7.7.x upgrade to 7.7.2
- 3. Backup the Rocket.chat database and configuration files before upgrading
- 4. Stop the Rocket.chat service
- 5. Follow official Rocket.chat upgrade documentation for your deployment method (docker, snap, or manual)
- 6. Install the appropriate fixed version (7.4.4, 7.5.3, 7.6.4, or 7.7.2)
- 7. Verify the service starts successfully and the version number reflects the upgrade
- 8. Test that the application functions normally
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-7974 — 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-2025-7974 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