CVE-2023-4557
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 classified as critical has been found in SourceCodester Inventory Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file app/ajax/search_purchase_paymen_report.php. The manipulation of the argument customer leads to sql injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. VDB-238158 is the identifier assigned to this vulnerability.
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 search_purchase_paymen_report.php file. The 'customer' parameter is not properly sanitized, allowing attackers to inject malicious SQL queries. The attack can be launched remotely and a public exploit is available.
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 the application versionLocate the SourceCodester Inventory Management System installation and check the version metadata (typically in a README file, about page, or version config). Compare against version 1.0.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.0
-
Locate the vulnerable script fileSearch for the file named search_purchase_paymen_report.php in the web application directory structure.Affected if The file exists in the webroot or application directory
-
Check customer parameter handlingOpen search_purchase_paymen_report.php and inspect the code handling the 'customer' parameter. Look for direct use of $_GET or $_POST['customer'] in SQL queries without sanitization functions like mysqli_real_escape_string, prepared statements, or parameterized queries.Affected if The code directly incorporates the customer parameter into SQL queries without sanitization or parameterization
-
Verify database connectivityConfirm the application is configured with a MySQL/MariaDB database connection, as SQL injection requires a database to exploit.Affected if The application uses a SQL database and the vulnerable script is accessible via HTTP requests
You are affected if running Inventory Management System version 1.0 and the search_purchase_paymen_report.php file contains unsanitized 'customer' parameter usage in SQL queries accessible over the network.
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 dataReplace dynamic SQL queries with parameterized queries/prepared statements in the affected file, and implement proper input validation for the customer parameter. Apply the vendor patch if available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-4557 — 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-2023-4557 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