Summary
An SQL injection flaw in the password reset endpoint of the restaurant-management-system allows attacker-controlled email values to be embedded directly into database queries.
When the forgotpassword.php POST handler processes unvalidated input, a remote attacker can manipulate the SQL logic, potentially accessing or altering sensitive user account data.
An SQL injection flaw in the password reset endpoint of the restaurant-management-system allows attacker-controlled email values to be embedded directly into database queries.
When the forgotpassword.php POST handler processes unvalidated input, a remote attacker can manipulate the SQL logic, potentially accessing or altering sensitive user account data.
Affected context
The vulnerability occurs in the forgotpassword.php password reset workflow of the restaurant-management-system web application when processing the email POST parameter.
It is relevant in deployments where user email addresses are used to look up accounts, and the parameter is inserted into SQL statements without robust validation or parameterization.
Any internet-exposed instance that allows unauthenticated access to the password reset feature may be affected, depending on how the underlying database queries are implemented.
The vulnerability occurs in the forgotpassword.php password reset workflow of the restaurant-management-system web application when processing the email POST parameter.
It is relevant in deployments where user email addresses are used to look up accounts, and the parameter is inserted into SQL statements without robust validation or parameterization.
Any internet-exposed instance that allows unauthenticated access to the password reset feature may be affected, depending on how the underlying database queries are implemented.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: Public-facing web application endpoint at
/forgotpassword.php - Required access: Network access to the application (typically unauthenticated access to the password reset form)
- Trigger point: Submission of crafted
emailPOST values to the forgot password handler - Why exploitation is possible: The handler appears to concatenate user-supplied
emaildata into SQL queries without using parameterized statements or proper escaping, allowing the input to change query structure
- Attack surface: Public-facing web application endpoint at
/forgotpassword.php - Required access: Network access to the application (typically unauthenticated access to the password reset form)
- Trigger point: Submission of crafted
emailPOST values to the forgot password handler - Why exploitation is possible: The handler appears to concatenate user-supplied
emaildata into SQL queries without using parameterized statements or proper escaping, allowing the input to change query structure
Why this happens
The underlying bug class is classic SQL injection, where untrusted input is incorporated into SQL statements as executable query syntax rather than treated strictly as data.
This maps to CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') and is often accompanied by CWE-74: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output, since the query output may be influenced by crafted characters.
In abstract terms, the application trusts the email POST parameter, building SQL commands dynamically instead of using prepared statements, typed parameters, or strict validation, thereby exposing the database to attacker-controlled logic.
The underlying bug class is classic SQL injection, where untrusted input is incorporated into SQL statements as executable query syntax rather than treated strictly as data.
This maps to CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') and is often accompanied by CWE-74: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output, since the query output may be influenced by crafted characters.
In abstract terms, the application trusts the email POST parameter, building SQL commands dynamically instead of using prepared statements, typed parameters, or strict validation, thereby exposing the database to attacker-controlled logic.
Potential impact
- An attacker may read or enumerate user account records and associated personal information.
- An attacker could modify or delete database contents, including customer, order, or payment-related data.
- The vulnerability can enable bypass of authentication or takeover of accounts tied to specific email addresses.
- SQL injection may be chained to server-side code execution depending on database configuration and functions in use.
- Application integrity and availability could be impacted through data corruption or destructive queries.
- An attacker may read or enumerate user account records and associated personal information.
- An attacker could modify or delete database contents, including customer, order, or payment-related data.
- The vulnerability can enable bypass of authentication or takeover of accounts tied to specific email addresses.
- SQL injection may be chained to server-side code execution depending on database configuration and functions in use.
- Application integrity and availability could be impacted through data corruption or destructive queries.
General mitigation guidance
Effective mitigation focuses on removing direct string concatenation of input into SQL and reducing the trust placed in externally supplied parameters.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Using parameterized queries or prepared statements for all database interactions, ensuring user input is bound as data.
- Applying strict input validation and normalization for fields like
email, limiting characters to well-defined patterns. - Centralizing database access through a vetted abstraction layer that enforces safe query construction.
- Restricting database privileges for the application account so that, even if injection occurs, destructive operations are limited.
- Designing password reset workflows to avoid leaking account existence information through query errors or verbose messages.
Effective mitigation focuses on removing direct string concatenation of input into SQL and reducing the trust placed in externally supplied parameters.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Using parameterized queries or prepared statements for all database interactions, ensuring user input is bound as data.
- Applying strict input validation and normalization for fields like
email, limiting characters to well-defined patterns. - Centralizing database access through a vetted abstraction layer that enforces safe query construction.
- Restricting database privileges for the application account so that, even if injection occurs, destructive operations are limited.
- Designing password reset workflows to avoid leaking account existence information through query errors or verbose messages.
How teams detect issues like this
Detection often starts with reviewing code for dynamic SQL construction that interpolates request parameters like $_POST['email'] directly into query strings.
Static analysis tools can flag patterns such as concatenation of request variables into SQL commands and the absence of prepared statements or query parameter binding.
Security-focused code reviews should examine authentication and password reset endpoints for error handling, direct database calls, and lack of input validation.
Organizations may also employ application security testing (DAST) to probe endpoints with crafted payloads and monitor responses or database behavior for signs of injection.
Detection often starts with reviewing code for dynamic SQL construction that interpolates request parameters like $_POST['email'] directly into query strings.
Static analysis tools can flag patterns such as concatenation of request variables into SQL commands and the absence of prepared statements or query parameter binding.
Security-focused code reviews should examine authentication and password reset endpoints for error handling, direct database calls, and lack of input validation.
Organizations may also employ application security testing (DAST) to probe endpoints with crafted payloads and monitor responses or database behavior for signs of injection.
Sources
| Source | Link |
|---|---|
| github. | github.com/ |
| github. | github.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
| vuldb. | vuldb.com/ |
