CVE-2026-25806
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 · uneditedPlaciPy is a placement management system designed for educational institutions. In version 1.0.0, the GET /api/students/:email PUT /api/students/:email/status, and DELETE /api/students/:email routes in backend/src/routes/student.routes.ts only enforce authentication using authenticateToken but do not enforce authorization. The application does not verify whether the authenticated user owns the student record being accessed, has an administrative / staff role, or is permitted to modify or delete the target student.
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 · high confidencePlaciPy 1.0.0 contains an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability where the GET /api/students/:email, PUT /api/students/:email/status, and DELETE /api/students/:email endpoints only enforce authentication via authenticateToken but lack authorization checks. Any authenticated user can access, modify, or delete any student record by specifying the target email, without verification of record ownership or admin/staff role privileges.
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= 1.0.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Verify PlaciPy installation versionCheck the installed package version of Prasklatechnology Placipy using your package manager or dependency file (e.g., pip show placipy, requirements.txt, or package.json). Confirm the version is exactly 1.0.0.Affected if The installed version is 1.0.0, matching the affected version range.
-
Confirm API endpoints are exposedIdentify if the REST API is running and the student endpoints are accessible. Check your API router or route configuration files for the existence of /api/students/:email, /api/students/:email/status (PUT), and /api/students/:email (DELETE) routes.Affected if These three endpoints are defined and exposed in the application.
-
Locate endpoint handler code for authorization logicInspect the source code for the affected endpoints. Look for the route handlers for GET, PUT, and DELETE operations on /api/students/:email. Search for authorization or permission check functions within these handlers.Affected if The handlers contain authenticateToken calls but lack any subsequent role verification (e.g., check for admin/staff role) or ownership validation (e.g., verify the requesting user's email matches the :email parameter).
-
Check for role-based access control implementationSearch the codebase for RBAC mechanisms. Look for patterns like role_required, require_admin, check_role, or similar authorization decorators/functions. Verify whether these are applied to the student API endpoints.Affected if No RBAC decorators or authorization checks are present in the endpoint handlers, or they exist elsewhere but are not applied to these specific routes.
-
Inspect authentication middleware usageReview the middleware or decorator chain applied to the student endpoints. Confirm that authenticateToken is the only access control applied, and that no follow-up authorization step verifies user identity against the requested resource.Affected if Only authentication is enforced (token validation passes) without subsequent authorization (user can only access their own record or requires admin privileges).
You are affected if running PlaciPy version 1.0.0 with the student API endpoints exposed and no authorization checks implemented beyond authentication token 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 role-based access control (RBAC) and ownership verification in the affected endpoints to ensure users can only access or modify their own student records unless they possess administrative or staff privileges.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-25806 — 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-2026-25806 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