CVE-2025-10800
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 weakness has been identified in itsourcecode Online Discussion Forum 1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /index.php. Executing manipulation of the argument email/password can lead to sql injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.
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 the login form (/index.php) of itsourcecode Online Discussion Forum 1.0 allows remote attackers to manipulate the email/password arguments to inject malicious SQL queries, potentially enabling authentication bypass, data exfiltration, or database compromise.
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.
-
Verify the installed version of the forum softwareCheck the application's version identifier in the source code headers, a configuration file, or the admin interface to confirm it is version 1.0.Affected if The installed version is 1.0 of itsourcecode Online Discussion Forum.
-
Confirm the login form is accessibleNavigate to the /index.php path on the web server to ensure the login form is present and active.Affected if The login form at /index.php is accessible on the server.
-
Inspect the login form source code for SQL query handlingExamine the PHP code in /index.php (or its included authentication logic) to see how the 'email' and 'password' parameters are used in SQL queries.Affected if The code uses user input from the email and password fields directly in SQL queries without parameterized queries or prepared statements.
-
Check for unsanitized input in database interactionsReview the database interaction code to identify any instances where user-supplied input is concatenated or inserted into SQL strings without sanitization or binding.Affected if The login authentication process contains SQL queries that are constructed with unsanitized user input, making it vulnerable to SQL injection.
The environment is affected if it runs version 1.0 of itsourcecode Online Discussion Forum and the login form at /index.php processes user input without using parameterized 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 dataImplement parameterized queries (prepared statements) for all database interactions involving user input, particularly the login form email and password fields, and validate/sanitize all user inputs before using them in SQL queries.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-10800 — 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-2025-10800 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