CVE-2025-55948 exposes a fundamental flaw in the RBAC implementation of yzcheng90 X-SpringBoot 6.0, where the frontend menu system and backend permission tables operate independently without atomic synchronization. When privileges are revoked via the frontend UI, the corresponding backend permission tables are not updated in real-time, causing a desynchronization. This results in a scenario where the user interface correctly hides restricted functions, but the backend still authorizes API requests based on outdated permissions. Attackers can exploit this by bypassing the frontend controls and sending direct API requests using tools like Postman to perform unauthorized privileged operations. These operations include creating user accounts with elevated permissions, accessing sensitive or confidential data beyond their clearance, and executing administrative commands that can compromise system integrity and availability. The vulnerability arises from architectural design flaws in permission management and lack of real-time synchronization mechanisms. No CVSS score has been assigned yet, and no known exploits are reported in the wild. However, the potential for privilege escalation and unauthorized access is significant, making this a critical security concern for any deployment of X-SpringBoot 6.0. The vulnerability affects all versions where this RBAC design is implemented, although specific affected versions are not listed. The lack of atomic updates between frontend and backend permission states is the root cause, highlighting the need for improved permission state management and validation on the backend.

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-55948 can be severe. Unauthorized privilege escalation can lead to data breaches involving personal data protected under GDPR, resulting in legal and financial penalties. Attackers gaining admin-level access can disrupt business operations, manipulate or delete critical data, and compromise system availability. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure are particularly vulnerable due to the sensitivity of their data and the potential for cascading effects on public services and economic stability. The ability to create high-permission accounts and execute admin commands can facilitate persistent threats and lateral movement within networks, increasing the risk of widespread compromise. Furthermore, the desynchronization flaw undermines trust in access control mechanisms, complicating compliance and audit processes. The lack of real-time backend enforcement means that traditional UI-based security controls are insufficient, requiring deeper inspection and validation of API requests. This vulnerability could also be leveraged in targeted attacks against European entities with known use of X-SpringBoot 6.0 or similar frameworks, especially where direct API access is exposed externally or internally without strict monitoring.

To mitigate CVE-2025-55948, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Enforce atomic synchronization between frontend menu permissions and backend permission tables to ensure real-time consistency. 2) Implement backend-side permission validation independent of frontend UI state to prevent stale permission exploitation. 3) Conduct thorough audits of API endpoints to verify that access controls are strictly enforced server-side. 4) Deploy runtime application self-protection (RASP) or API gateways with fine-grained access control policies that validate permissions on every request. 5) Restrict direct API access to trusted networks or authenticated sessions only, and monitor API usage for anomalous privilege escalation attempts. 6) Apply strict logging and alerting on permission changes and high-privilege operations to detect suspicious activity early. 7) Review and update RBAC design to avoid dual dependency on frontend and backend permission states without synchronization. 8) Engage with the vendor or community to obtain patches or updates addressing this flaw once available. 9) Conduct penetration testing focusing on API-level access control bypass scenarios. 10) Educate developers and security teams on the risks of desynchronized permission models and best practices for secure RBAC implementation.