CVE-2025-41077
Access Control in Viafirma Inbox ≤ 4.5.27
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-41077 is a high-severity Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) vulnerability in Viafirma Inbox. Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 14th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-41077 is an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability, mapped to CWE-639, affecting Viafirma Inbox version 4.5.13. The flaw allows any authenticated user without application privileges to list all users, access their data, and modify it, including critical fields like email addresses. It carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N), indicating high severity due to network accessibility, low complexity, and significant impacts on confidentiality and integrity.
An attacker requires only low-privilege authentication (PR:L) to exploit this remotely over the network with no user interaction needed. Successful exploitation enables listing and altering any user's data, such as changing email addresses. This facilitates account takeover via the password recovery functionality, allowing impersonation of any target user, including those with administrative permissions.
Mitigation guidance is available in the INCIBE-CERT advisory detailing multiple vulnerabilities in Viafirma products, accessible at https://www.incibe.es/en/incibe-cert/notices/aviso/multiple-vulnerabilities-viafirma-products.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-1931
- 🇪🇸 INCIBE: www.incibe.es
Vulnerability Data
IDOR vulnerability has been found in Viafirma Inbox v4.5.13 that allows any authenticated user without privileges in the application to list all users, access and modify their data. This allows the user's email addresses to be modified and, subsequently, using…
more
the password recovery functionality to access the application by impersonating any user, including those with administrative permissions.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforcing approved authorizations on every access request structurally stops a user-controlled key from reaching another user's data.
Requiring explicit access-control decisions on each request blocks unauthorized key-driven access.
Least-privilege restrictions limit the scope of data reachable even if a key check is bypassed.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Enforcing authorization policy and least privilege directly blocks user-controlled key tampering that bypasses access checks.
Logical access controls prevent unauthorized data access that results from missing authorization checks on object references.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
A.8.3 mandates that access to information be restricted based on user identity and permissions, directly addressing the missing authorization check that defines CWE-639; when applied, it removes the vulnerability by requiring that such checks be implemented.
A.5.15 directly requires defining and implementing access control rules (including authorization, need-to-know, role-based restrictions, formal requests, and consistency with classification) that stop one user from reaching another's data via a tampered key; the bounded remainder is dynamic or application-specific authorization logic (cross-referenced to 8.26) that may still allow bypass if those downstream rules are flawed.
Security testing can detect missing authorization checks but does not prevent the weakness in production.
Managing access rights includes ensuring users can only access their own records and not bypass authorization by altering identifiers.
Secure coding practices reduce the likelihood of missing authorization checks but do not guarantee their presence at runtime.