CVE-2025-10068
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 flaw has been found in itsourcecode Online Discussion Forum 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /admin/admin_forum/add_views.php. Executing manipulation of the argument ID can lead to sql injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.
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 · moderate confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in itsourcecode Online Discussion Forum 1.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL queries via manipulation of the ID parameter in the /admin/admin_forum/add_views.php file. The lack of input sanitization or parameterized queries on this parameter enables attackers to inject malicious SQL statements.
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 the application is installedLook for the Online Discussion Forum application (itsourcecode or Emiloi brand) on the web server. Check for directories containing 'forum', 'discussion', or check the application's main page for branding.Affected if The application is itsourcecode or Emiloi Online Discussion Forum version 1.0
-
Check if the vulnerable script existsAccess or list the file /admin/admin_forum/add_views.php on the web server. This is the vulnerable endpoint.Affected if The file /admin/admin_forum/add_views.php exists and is accessible via HTTP/HTTPS
-
Verify the application versionCheck the application's version information (typically in about page, footer, or version file). Compare against the affected version: 1.0Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.0 (Emiloi Online Discussion Forum)
-
Confirm admin panel accessibilityAttempt to access the /admin/ administrative interface. The vulnerability resides in the admin panel path.Affected if The /admin/admin_forum/add_views.php endpoint is reachable without authentication or with valid admin credentials
The environment is affected if the itsourcecode/Emiloi Online Discussion Forum version 1.0 is installed and the file /admin/admin_forum/add_views.php is accessible, as the ID parameter in that file lacks proper input sanitization for SQL queries.
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 prepared statements/parameterized queries in add_views.php, specifically for the ID parameter, and validate/sanitize all user inputs before database operations.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-10068 — 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-2025-10068 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