Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-53942

Goauthentik Authentik ≤ 2025.4.4

Published
23 July 2025
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
View advisory
CVSS Score v4 7.1
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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:X
EPSS Score 0.0049 40th percentile
Risk Priority 42 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-53942 is a high-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Goauthentik Authentik. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism (T1548); ranked at the 40th 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-2 (Account Management) and AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

A06:2025 Insecure Design

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

authentik is an open-source Identity Provider that emphasizes flexibility and versatility, with support for a wide set of protocols. In versions 2025.4.4 and earlier, as well as versions 2025.6.0-rc1 through 2025.6.3, deactivated users who registered through OAuth/SAML or linked their…

more

accounts to OAuth/SAML providers can still retain partial access to the system despite their accounts being deactivated. They end up in a half-authenticated state where they cannot access the API but crucially they can authorize applications if they know the URL of the application. To workaround this issue, developers can add an expression policy to the user login stage on the respective authentication flow with the expression of return request.context["pending_user"].is_active. This modification ensures that the return statement only activates the user login stage when the user is active. This issue is fixed in versions authentik 2025.4.4 and 2025.6.4.

CWE(s)
CWE-269

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1548 Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may circumvent mechanisms designed to control privilege elevation to gain higher-level permissions.
attack.mitre.org →
T1134 Access Token Manipulation Stealth
Adversaries may modify access tokens to operate under a different user or system security context to perform actions and bypass access controls.
attack.mitre.org →
T1548.001 Setuid and Setgid Privilege Escalation
An adversary may abuse configurations where an application has the setuid or setgid bits set in order to get code running in a different (and possibly more privileged) user’s context.
attack.mitre.org →
T1548.003 Sudo and Sudo Caching Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may perform sudo caching and/or use the sudoers file to elevate privileges.
attack.mitre.org →
T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
attack.mitre.org →
T1078 Valid Accounts Stealth
Adversaries may obtain and abuse credentials of existing accounts as a means of gaining Initial Access, Persistence, Privilege Escalation, or Defense Evasion.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-47077Same product: Goauthentik Authentik
CVE-2024-42490Same product: Goauthentik Authentik
CVE-2024-52287Same product: Goauthentik Authentik
CVE-2024-23647Same product: Goauthentik Authentik
CVE-2026-49443Same product: Goauthentik Authentik
CVE-2023-46249Same product: Goauthentik Authentik
CVE-2025-52553Same product: Goauthentik Authentik
CVE-2024-47070Same product: Goauthentik Authentik
CVE-2026-49448Same product: Goauthentik Authentik
CVE-2026-25748Same product: Goauthentik Authentik

Affected Assets

goauthentik
authentik
≤ 2025.4.4 · 2025.6.0 — 2025.6.4

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 5 hardening rules · 5 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

—

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

AC-2 Account Management good match

Account management directly governs assignment and tracking of privileges so proper implementation stops the weakness from being introduced.

AC-24 Access Control Decisions good match

Requiring explicit access-control decisions ensures privileges are evaluated rather than assumed or omitted.

AC-3 Access Enforcement good match

Access enforcement applies the correct privilege checks at every request, structurally preventing unintended spheres of control.

AC-5 Separation of Duties good match

Separation of duties constrains how privileges may be assigned, reducing the chance of overly broad actor control.

AC-6 Least Privilege good match

Least privilege is the direct countermeasure to improper privilege management; implementing it eliminates the root cause.

AC-16 Security and Privacy Attributes partial match

Binding security attributes to subjects/objects supplies the mechanism needed to track and enforce privileges correctly.

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.

PR.AA-05 mostly match
prevents

PR.AA-05 enforces least privilege/SoD and periodic reviews that directly remove most privilege-assignment defects, yet CWE-269 also covers escalation paths and role design outside a single access-management control.

PR.AA-01 partial match
prevents

PR.AA-01 supplies credential/identity lifecycle support that can reduce some privilege-assignment errors but does not itself assign, modify, or check privileges, leaving most of CWE-269's risk unaddressed.

PR.PS-01 partial match
prevents

Config baselines and default reviews can enforce some privilege-related settings (one facet) but do not address code-level assignment/tracking logic that defines CWE-269.

PR.PS-05 partial match
prevents

PR.PS-05 can partially limit exploitability of some privilege issues via execution restrictions, but does not address the core design/implementation flaws of CWE-269 at all.

PR.DS-10 none match
prevents

PR.DS-10 protects data-in-use without touching privilege assignment/tracking, so it neither prevents CWE-269 nor removes more than one narrow facet of its risk.

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.5.18 Access rights mostly match
prevents

Requiring owner approval, segregation of duties, and periodic reviews prevents the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges to users or processes.

A.8.2 Privileged access rights mostly match
prevents

Enforcing minimum-necessary privileges, temporary grants, and separation of administrative versus normal identities prevents the over-assignment of rights that CWE-269 describes.

A.8.3 Information access restriction mostly match
prevents

Dynamic techniques that grant the minimum necessary rights for a given time window and revoke them afterward reduce the window in which excessive or unnecessary privileges can be exploited.

A.5.15 Access control partial match
prevents

Explicit restrictions on privileged access and segregation of duties limit the scope of privileges that can be assigned, reducing the chance that excessive or unnecessary privileges are granted to entities.

A.5.2 Information security roles and responsibilities partial match
prevents

Defining and communicating authorization levels for each role limits the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges.

A.5.3 Segregation of duties partial match
mitigates

Separating duties such as developing software from administering production systems prevents any one person from accumulating excessive privileges that would constitute improper privilege management.

Hardening callouts derived

Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).

Windows 10 (1 rule)
  • V-220712 Only accounts responsible for the administration of a system must have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-269
Windows 11 (1 rule)
  • V-253269 Only accounts responsible for the administration of a system must have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-269
Windows Server 2016 (1 rule)
  • V-225007 Only administrators responsible for the member server or standalone or nondomain-joined system must have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-269
Windows Server 2019 (1 rule)
  • V-205746 Windows Server 2019 must only allow Administrators responsible for the member server or standalone or nondomain-joined system to have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-269
Windows Server 2022 (1 rule)
  • V-254428 Windows Server 2022 must only allow administrators responsible for the member server or standalone or nondomain-joined system to have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-269

References