CVE-2026-25875VulnerabilityPublished 9 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-25875: Praskla-Technology assessment-placipy · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Praskla-Technology assessment-placipySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.3 Critical.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.3Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: High
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 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

Affected software

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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should focus on implementing strict server-side validation of JWT claims, ensuring that role and scope attributes are verified against a trusted backend source rather than relying on client-supplied data. Organizations should audit their authorization middleware to confirm that no client-controlled tokens are blindly trusted. If a patch from Praskla-Technology becomes available, it should be applied promptly. In the absence of a patch, organizations can deploy Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious JWT manipulations. Network segmentation and access controls should limit exposure of the placement management system to trusted internal networks only. Regular monitoring and logging of administrative access attempts can help detect exploitation attempts early. Educating IT staff about the risks of JWT misuse and enforcing secure coding practices for token validation in future deployments is essential. Finally, organizations should review and update their incident response plans to address potential exploitation scenarios related to this vulnerability.

Description

CVE-2026-25875 is a critical authorization vulnerability in Praskla-Technology's assessment-placipy version 1.0.0, a placement management system for educational institutions. The flaw arises because the admin authorization middleware trusts client-controlled JWT claims (role and scope) without enforcing server-side verification. This allows attackers to escalate privileges by manipulating JWT tokens, gaining unauthorized admin access without authentication or user interaction. The vulnerability has a CVSS 4.0 score of 9.3, indicating a critical severity with high impact on confidentiality and integrity. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. European educational institutions using this software are at risk of unauthorized data access and manipulation.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly educational institutions using assessment-placipy, this vulnerability poses a severe risk. Unauthorized administrative access can lead to exposure and manipulation of sensitive student data, including personal information and placement results, potentially violating GDPR and other data protection regulations. The integrity of placement processes can be compromised, affecting students' academic and career outcomes. Additionally, attackers could disrupt institutional operations by altering or deleting critical records. The breach of confidentiality and integrity could damage institutional reputation and lead to legal and financial consequences. Since the vulnerability requires no authentication or user interaction, it can be exploited remotely by any attacker with network access to the system, increasing the attack surface. The absence of known exploits in the wild does not diminish the urgency, as the vulnerability is straightforward to exploit once discovered. European organizations must consider this a critical threat to their educational IT infrastructure.

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-mx95-8ppg-v574 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Feb 2026, 09:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats