Summary
A high-severity SQL injection vulnerability in the Online Admission System allows remotely supplied input in the schedid argument to influence database queries. If the affected administrative endpoint is reachable and input is not safely handled, an attacker may read, modify, or otherwise interact with application data.
A high-severity SQL injection vulnerability in the Online Admission System allows remotely supplied input in the schedid argument to influence database queries. If the affected administrative endpoint is reachable and input is not safely handled, an attacker may read, modify, or otherwise interact with application data.
Affected context
The weakness occurs in the administrative functionality served by /admin/confirm.php when the schedid parameter is incorporated into a database query without adequate separation between data and SQL syntax. Risk depends on the endpoint being reachable over the network, the parameter reaching the vulnerable code path, and the database account having meaningful privileges.
The weakness occurs in the administrative functionality served by /admin/confirm.php when the schedid parameter is incorporated into a database query without adequate separation between data and SQL syntax. Risk depends on the endpoint being reachable over the network, the parameter reaching the vulnerable code path, and the database account having meaningful privileges.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: A remotely accessible web endpoint at /admin/confirm.php - Required access: Network access to the application; authentication
requirements depend on the deployment's access controls
- Trigger point: Processing of the schedid request argument - Why exploitation is possible: User-controlled input may be interpreted as
SQL syntax rather than being handled strictly as a value
- Attack surface: A remotely accessible web endpoint at /admin/confirm.php - Required access: Network access to the application; authentication
requirements depend on the deployment's access controls
- Trigger point: Processing of the schedid request argument - Why exploitation is possible: User-controlled input may be interpreted as
SQL syntax rather than being handled strictly as a value
Why this happens
The underlying bug is an injection flaw in which externally controlled input is combined with a database statement without reliable parameter separation. This behavior maps primarily to CWE-89, Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command. CWE-74 is also relevant because the broader weakness involves allowing input to alter the intended interpretation of an instruction.
The underlying bug is an injection flaw in which externally controlled input is combined with a database statement without reliable parameter separation. This behavior maps primarily to CWE-89, Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command. CWE-74 is also relevant because the broader weakness involves allowing input to alter the intended interpretation of an instruction.
Potential impact
- An attacker may retrieve sensitive records from the application database.
- An attacker could alter, delete, or corrupt admission-related data.
- Database credentials, account information, or internal configuration data may be exposed.
- The application could experience unauthorized administrative actions or service disruption.
- An attacker may retrieve sensitive records from the application database.
- An attacker could alter, delete, or corrupt admission-related data.
- Database credentials, account information, or internal configuration data may be exposed.
- The application could experience unauthorized administrative actions or service disruption.
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation generally centers on treating request parameters as data rather than executable query content. Common defensive patterns include using parameterized queries or prepared statements, applying allowlisted type and format validation to identifiers, and avoiding dynamic SQL construction. Database accounts should follow least privilege, while sensitive records and administrative functions should have narrowly scoped access. Secure defaults, centralized data-access abstractions, and independent authorization checks can reduce the consequences of input-handling mistakes.
Mitigation generally centers on treating request parameters as data rather than executable query content. Common defensive patterns include using parameterized queries or prepared statements, applying allowlisted type and format validation to identifiers, and avoiding dynamic SQL construction. Database accounts should follow least privilege, while sensitive records and administrative functions should have narrowly scoped access. Secure defaults, centralized data-access abstractions, and independent authorization checks can reduce the consequences of input-handling mistakes.
How teams detect issues like this
Detection approaches may include static analysis for string concatenation or interpolation of request parameters into SQL statements, code review of database access in administrative handlers, and tests that verify query parameters remain bound values. Web application monitoring can flag unusual database errors, malformed parameter patterns, and unexpected data access. Policy enforcement in CI can require approved query APIs and security review for changes to database-facing endpoints. Automated review tools may help identify likely injection paths but should be supplemented by manual validation.
Detection approaches may include static analysis for string concatenation or interpolation of request parameters into SQL statements, code review of database access in administrative handlers, and tests that verify query parameters remain bound values. Web application monitoring can flag unusual database errors, malformed parameter patterns, and unexpected data access. Policy enforcement in CI can require approved query APIs and security review for changes to database-facing endpoints. Automated review tools may help identify likely injection paths but should be supplemented by manual validation.
Sources
| Source | Link |
|---|---|
| github. | github.com/ |
| itsourcecode. | itsourcecode.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
