CVE-2026-25811
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 application derives the tenant identifier directly from the email domain provided by the user, without validating domain ownership or registration. This allows cross-tenant data access.
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 derives tenant identifiers directly from user-supplied email domains without validating ownership, allowing attackers to impersonate any domain and access cross-tenant data.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Identify PlaciPy versionRun 'pip show placipy' or check your dependency lock file for the installed PlaciPy version numberAffected if The installed version is exactly 1.0.0
-
Locate tenant configurationSearch configuration files for tenant-related settings, typically in config.yaml, settings.py, or environment variables related to multi-tenancyAffected if Tenant configuration exists and uses email domains as tenant identifiers
-
Check domain validation logicReview the tenant creation code or configuration to determine if domain ownership is validated before accepting a domain as a tenant identifierAffected if Domain validation is absent or not enforced when tenants are created from email domains
-
Inspect tenant creation flowExamine how new tenants are provisioned - look for whether any ownership verification (email confirmation, DNS check, admin approval) occurs before a domain is acceptedAffected if No ownership verification step exists in the tenant provisioning process
-
Verify tenant isolationTest whether a user can create a tenant using an arbitrary external domain (e.g., microsoft.com) and access data associated with that domainAffected if Users can register arbitrary domains as tenants without proof of ownership
A user is affected if PlaciPy 1.0.0 is installed and the tenant system accepts email domains without validating that the user owns or controls those domains.
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 domain ownership verification (e.g., email verification to domain, DNS record confirmation, or admin approval) before accepting a domain as a tenant identifier.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,816.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-25811 — 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-2026-25811 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