CVE-2023-4184
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA vulnerability was found in SourceCodester Inventory Management System 1.0 and classified as critical. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file sell_return.php. The manipulation of the argument pid leads to sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The associated identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-236219.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in SourceCodester Inventory Management System 1.0's sell_return.php file. The 'pid' parameter is not properly sanitized before being used in SQL queries, allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary SQL commands.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 1.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if Inventory Management System is installedLocate the application's web root directory and confirm the presence of SourceCodester Inventory Management System files, particularly sell_return.phpAffected if The application is present in the environment and sell_return.php exists
-
Confirm the installed versionCheck for a version file, README, or header comments in main PHP files that indicate the software versionAffected if The version is exactly 1.0 (the only affected version per the provided information)
-
Inspect sell_return.php for the vulnerable 'pid' parameterOpen sell_return.php and search for code that handles the 'pid' parameter (e.g., $_GET['pid'] or $_POST['pid']) and verify if it is directly interpolated into SQL queries without prepared statementsAffected if The 'pid' parameter is used in SQL queries without parameterized queries or input sanitization
-
Verify database connectivity and query executionConfirm the application connects to a MySQL/MariaDB database and examine the SQL query construction around the 'pid' parameter in sell_return.phpAffected if The application executes SQL queries using the unsanitized 'pid' parameter against a database
A user is affected if they are running Inventory Management System version 1.0 with sell_return.php present and the 'pid' parameter is used in direct SQL query construction without prepared statements.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement prepared statements/parameterized queries for the 'pid' parameter in sell_return.php. Additionally, audit the entire application for similar SQL injection patterns and apply consistent input validation across all user-supplied parameters.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-4184 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-4184 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data