Summary
MCMS versions 6.1.1 through 6.2.1 contain a SQL injection vulnerability in the custom model/form import feature. If attacker-controlled input reaches the affected import processing path, an attacker may alter database queries and potentially access, modify, or delete data.
MCMS versions 6.1.1 through 6.2.1 contain a SQL injection vulnerability in the custom model/form import feature. If attacker-controlled input reaches the affected import processing path, an attacker may alter database queries and potentially access, modify, or delete data.
Affected context
The vulnerability occurs in MCMS deployments that expose or process the custom model/form import feature using affected versions. Risk depends on whether untrusted users or external requests can supply import content or influence values consumed by database queries without adequate parameterization.
The vulnerability occurs in MCMS deployments that expose or process the custom model/form import feature using affected versions. Risk depends on whether untrusted users or external requests can supply import content or influence values consumed by database queries without adequate parameterization.
Exploit preconditions
- Attack surface: The custom model/form import feature
- Required access: Access sufficient to submit or influence import data, depending on deployment permissions
- Trigger point: Processing of imported custom model or form data
- Why exploitation is possible: User-controlled values may be incorporated into SQL statements without reliable parameter binding or equivalent query isolation
- Attack surface: The custom model/form import feature
- Required access: Access sufficient to submit or influence import data, depending on deployment permissions
- Trigger point: Processing of imported custom model or form data
- Why exploitation is possible: User-controlled values may be incorporated into SQL statements without reliable parameter binding or equivalent query isolation
Why this happens
The underlying bug is an SQL injection weakness in which externally influenced input is handled as part of a database query rather than strictly as data. This maps to CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command, commonly caused by dynamically constructing SQL statements without parameterized queries or equivalent safe query interfaces.
The underlying bug is an SQL injection weakness in which externally influenced input is handled as part of a database query rather than strictly as data. This maps to CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command, commonly caused by dynamically constructing SQL statements without parameterized queries or equivalent safe query interfaces.
Potential impact
- An attacker may read unauthorized application or user data
- An attacker could modify or delete database records
- Database integrity and application behavior may be compromised
- Sensitive credentials or configuration data may be exposed
- In some environments, broader compromise could occur through database-linked functionality
- An attacker may read unauthorized application or user data
- An attacker could modify or delete database records
- Database integrity and application behavior may be compromised
- Sensitive credentials or configuration data may be exposed
- In some environments, broader compromise could occur through database-linked functionality
General mitigation guidance
Mitigation generally focuses on separating query code from imported values and reducing trust in model or form definitions.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Use parameterized queries, prepared statements, or safe query-builder interfaces
- Apply strict allowlist validation for imported model and form structures
- Avoid dynamic SQL construction from imported or user-controlled values
- Restrict access to import functionality according to least privilege
- Limit database account permissions to only the operations required by the application
- Apply layered authorization and audit logging around import operations
Mitigation generally focuses on separating query code from imported values and reducing trust in model or form definitions.
Common defensive patterns include:
- Use parameterized queries, prepared statements, or safe query-builder interfaces
- Apply strict allowlist validation for imported model and form structures
- Avoid dynamic SQL construction from imported or user-controlled values
- Restrict access to import functionality according to least privilege
- Limit database account permissions to only the operations required by the application
- Apply layered authorization and audit logging around import operations
How teams detect issues like this
Organizations can look for SQL injection risks through:
- Static analysis rules identifying string concatenation or interpolation in SQL statements
- Code review checks for database queries built from import fields or request parameters
- Dynamic testing with database-aware input validation and error monitoring
- Web application firewall or API policy rules detecting anomalous query syntax
- Audit monitoring for unexpected schema access, bulk reads, or unusual data modification activity
- Automated security review tools that flag unparameterized database access patterns
Organizations can look for SQL injection risks through:
- Static analysis rules identifying string concatenation or interpolation in SQL statements
- Code review checks for database queries built from import fields or request parameters
- Dynamic testing with database-aware input validation and error monitoring
- Web application firewall or API policy rules detecting anomalous query syntax
- Audit monitoring for unexpected schema access, bulk reads, or unusual data modification activity
- Automated security review tools that flag unparameterized database access patterns
Sources
| Source | Link |
|---|---|
| github. | github.com/ |
