CVE-2026-25660
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 · uneditedCodeChecker is an analyzer tooling, defect database and viewer extension for the Clang Static Analyzer and Clang Tidy. Authentication bypass occurs when the URL ends with Authentication with certain function calls. This bypass allows assigning arbitrary permission to any user existing in CodeChecker. This issue affects CodeChecker: through 6.27.3.
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 confidenceCodeChecker versions through 6.27.3 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where specially crafted URLs ending with 'Authentication' combined with certain function calls allow attackers to bypass authentication checks. This enables privilege escalation by assigning arbitrary permissions to any existing user in the system.
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< 6.27.4CVSS 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 CodeChecker installation and versionRun 'codechecker --version' or check the package manager for installed CodeChecker version (e.g., pip show codechecker, rpm -qi codechecker, or docker images). Compare the version number to the affected range (versions through 6.27.3).Affected if The installed version is 6.27.3 or lower, or any version less than 6.27.4.
-
Verify CodeChecker web server is runningCheck if the CodeChecker web interface/service is running. Look for processes listening on the CodeChecker web port (default 8001) using commands like 'netstat -tlnp' or 'ss -tlnp', or check if the service is active via 'systemctl status codechecker' or similar service management tools.Affected if The CodeChecker web server is running and accessible.
-
Confirm authentication is enabled in CodeCheckerReview the CodeChecker configuration file (commonly located in the config directory where CodeChecker is installed, or in /etc/codechecker) for authentication settings. Check for 'authentication' or 'auth' enabled flags.Affected if Authentication is enabled and configured in the CodeChecker deployment.
-
Inspect web server access logs for suspicious URL patternsReview CodeChecker web server access logs for requests ending with 'Authentication' (case-sensitive URL path ending). Look for patterns like '/Authentication' or paths containing 'Authentication' combined with permission modification endpoints.Affected if Any access logs contain requests to URLs ending with 'Authentication' that bypass normal authentication flow.
You are affected if CodeChecker version is less than 6.27.4 AND the web authentication interface is enabled and exposed.
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 · scoped6.27.4
Upgrade CodeChecker to a version beyond 6.27.3 that addresses this vulnerability. Alternatively, implement additional server-side validation of authentication tokens and authorization checks independent of URL path patterns.
CodeChecker 6.27.4
- 1. Backup your current CodeChecker configuration and database
- 2. Stop the CodeChecker server if it is running
- 3. Upgrade CodeChecker to version 6.27.4 or later using your package manager or installation method
- 4. Verify the upgrade completed successfully
- 5. Restart the CodeChecker server
- 6. Test that authentication is working correctly and that permission assignments are properly restricted
- 7. Verify that users can no longer assign arbitrary permissions to other users
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-25660 — 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-2026-25660 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