CVE-2025-55948VulnerabilityPublished 4 Dec 2025Updated 8 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-55948: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 Dec 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their use of yzcheng90 X-SpringBoot 6.0 or any dependent systems to identify exposure. Since no official patches are currently available, organizations must implement compensating controls: 1) Enforce backend permission checks independently of frontend UI states, ensuring backend authorization is the sole source of truth. 2) Implement atomic synchronization mechanisms or transactional updates between frontend menu permissions and backend permission tables to prevent desynchronization. 3) Introduce rigorous API gateway or WAF rules to detect and block unauthorized API calls that bypass the UI. 4) Conduct thorough penetration testing focusing on direct API access to identify privilege escalation paths. 5) Monitor logs for anomalous API usage patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 6) Restrict API access to trusted networks or require strong authentication and authorization mechanisms. 7) Educate developers about the risks of relying on frontend controls for security decisions. 8) Prepare incident response plans to quickly contain and remediate any detected exploitation. Once vendor patches become available, prioritize their deployment. Additionally, consider application-layer encryption and data access monitoring to limit damage in case of compromise.

Description

This vulnerability fundamentally arises from yzcheng90 X-SpringBoot 6.0's implementation of role-based access control (RBAC) through dual dependency on frontend menu systems and backend permission tables, without enforcing atomic synchronization between these components. The critical flaw manifests when frontend menu updates (such as privilege revocation) fail to propagate to the backend permission table in real-time, creating a dangerous desynchronization. While users lose access to restricted functions through the web interface (as UI elements properly disappear), the stale permission records still validate unauthorized API requests when accessed directly through tools like Postman. Attackers exploiting this inconsistency can perform privileged operations including but not limited to: creating high-permission user accounts, accessing sensitive data beyond their clearance level, and executing admin-level commands.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of critical systems that use the vulnerable X-SpringBoot 6.0 framework or its derivatives. Attackers can escalate privileges without authentication, potentially gaining administrative control over applications, accessing sensitive personal or corporate data, and disrupting services. This can lead to data breaches, regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR violations), financial losses, and reputational damage. The ability to create high-permission accounts or execute admin commands could facilitate further lateral movement within networks, increasing the scope of compromise. Sectors with high reliance on web applications for sensitive operations—such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure—are particularly vulnerable. The lack of real-time synchronization between frontend and backend permissions undermines trust in access controls, making it easier for attackers to exploit the system stealthily. Given the network-based attack vector and no requirement for user interaction, the threat is scalable and can be automated, increasing potential impact across multiple organizations.

CWE-266Incorrect Privilege Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Dec 2025, 21:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-266

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats