VulnerabilityPublished 9 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-25811: Praskla-Technology assessment-placipy · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Praskla-Technology assessment-placipySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Feb 2026
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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Praskla-Technologyassessment-placipy	Affected =1.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Implement robust domain ownership verification mechanisms before assigning tenant identifiers based on email domains. This can include DNS TXT record verification, email-based domain confirmation workflows, or integration with domain registrars.
Enforce strict tenant isolation at the application layer, ensuring that access controls do not rely solely on user-provided email domains.
Apply the principle of least privilege by restricting user permissions and monitoring access patterns for anomalies indicative of cross-tenant access attempts.
Conduct thorough code reviews and security testing focused on multi-tenancy and authorization logic.
Until an official patch is released by Praskla-Technology, consider deploying compensating controls such as network segmentation, enhanced logging, and alerting on suspicious tenant access.
Educate administrators and users about the risk and encourage reporting of suspicious activity.
Regularly audit tenant data access logs to detect unauthorized cross-tenant data access.
Engage with the vendor for timely updates and patches, and plan for prompt deployment once available.

Description

CVE-2026-25811 is a medium-severity authorization vulnerability in PlaciPy version 1.0.0, a placement management system for educational institutions. The application derives tenant identifiers solely from the user's email domain without validating domain ownership, enabling unauthorized cross-tenant data access. This flaw allows an attacker to access data belonging to other tenants by exploiting the weak domain-based tenant identification. The vulnerability does not require user interaction or authentication but does require low privileges. Although no known exploits are currently in the wild, the impact on confidentiality is significant, especially for institutions managing sensitive student placement data. European educational institutions using PlaciPy 1.0.0 are at risk, particularly in countries with high adoption of this software or large educational sectors.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-25811 is unauthorized disclosure of sensitive data across tenants in the PlaciPy system. For European educational institutions, this could mean exposure of student placement records, personal information, and institutional data to unauthorized parties, potentially violating GDPR and other data protection regulations. The breach of confidentiality can undermine trust in the affected institutions and lead to legal and reputational consequences. Since the vulnerability allows cross-tenant data access without authentication, attackers could systematically harvest data from multiple tenants if they can register or authenticate with manipulated email domains. Although the vulnerability does not affect data integrity or system availability, the confidentiality breach alone is significant given the sensitivity of educational data. The lack of current exploits reduces immediate risk, but the ease of exploitation and the critical nature of the data involved make this a serious concern for European organizations using PlaciPy 1.0.0. Additionally, regulatory scrutiny in Europe may increase the impact due to strict data protection laws.

Summary

CVE-2026-25811 is an authorization vulnerability classified under CWE-863 affecting PlaciPy version 1.0.0, a placement management system developed by Praskla-Technology for educational institutions. The core issue arises from the application's method of tenant identification: it derives the tenant ID directly from the email domain provided by users during login or registration without verifying if the user legitimately owns or controls that domain. This flawed logic allows an attacker to impersonate or claim a tenant identity simply by using an email address with a domain matching another tenant. Consequently, the attacker can gain unauthorized access to data belonging to other tenants, violating confidentiality boundaries. The vulnerability is remotely exploitable over the network without requiring user interaction and only requires low privileges, making it relatively easy to exploit. The CVSS 4.0 score of 5.3 reflects a medium severity, primarily due to the limited scope of impact (tenant data leakage) and the absence of integrity or availability compromise. No patches or fixes are currently published, and no known exploits have been reported in the wild. The vulnerability highlights a critical design flaw in multi-tenant SaaS applications where tenant isolation depends on unverified user input. Proper domain ownership validation, such as DNS verification or email confirmation workflows, is necessary to prevent unauthorized cross-tenant access.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/Praskla-Technology/assessment-placipy/security/advisories/GHSA-3gmm-9ww2-87fh (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Feb 2026, 09:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats