CVE-2025-0699
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 JoeyBling bootplus up to 247d5f6c209be1a5cf10cd0fa18e1d8cc63cf55d. It has been declared as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /admin/sys/role/list. The manipulation of the argument sort leads to sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable.
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 JoeyBling bootplus admin interface at /admin/sys/role/list endpoint. The 'sort' parameter is not properly sanitized, allowing attackers to inject malicious SQL queries. This is a high-severity (CVSS 8.8) remote vulnerability that has been publicly disclosed.
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<= 2020-08-24CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Confirm JoeyBling Bootplus installationIdentify whether the target application is JoeyBling Bootplus by examining application files, headers, or runtime identifiersAffected if The application is JoeyBling Bootplus
-
Check installed versionLocate the version information for the JoeyBling Bootplus installation (typically in build metadata, configuration files, or the JAR/WAR manifest) and compare it to the affected version 2020-08-24Affected if Installed version is 2020-08-24 or earlier
-
Verify admin endpoint exposureCheck if the application exposes the admin interface at /admin/sys/role/list (for example, by attempting access or reviewing routing configuration)Affected if The /admin/sys/role/list endpoint is accessible
Environment is affected if JoeyBling Bootplus version 2020-08-24 or earlier is running and the admin role list endpoint is exposed
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 parameterized queries or proper input validation/sanitization for the 'sort' parameter. Until a patch is available, consider disabling or restricting access to the affected admin endpoint.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-0699 — 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-2025-0699 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