CVE-2025-11416
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 security flaw has been discovered in PHPGurukul Beauty Parlour Management System 1.1. This affects an unknown part of the file /admin/invoices.php. Performing a manipulation of the argument delid results in sql injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.
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 PHPGurukul Beauty Parlour Management System 1.1 allows remote attackers to inject malicious SQL queries via the 'delid' parameter in /admin/invoices.php. The lack of input sanitization or parameterized queries enables attackers to manipulate database queries, potentially leading to unauthorized data access, modification, or deletion.
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= 1.1CVSS 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.
-
Locate the Beauty Parlour Management System installationSearch for the file /admin/invoices.php or look for directories containing 'beauty' or 'parlour' in the web root.Affected if The application is installed and the file invoices.php exists in the /admin/ directory.
-
Verify the application versionCheck for a version file, footer, or configuration file in the installation directory that displays the version number.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.1.
-
Confirm the vulnerable file existsAccess the file path /admin/invoices.php via the web server or local file system inspection.Affected if The file invoices.php exists in the /admin/ directory.
-
Check if admin interface is accessibleAttempt to access the /admin/ login page or invoices.php directly through HTTP/HTTPS.Affected if The admin panel is accessible without authentication or with valid credentials.
-
Inspect the delid parameter handlingReview the source code of invoices.php and search for the 'delid' parameter usage in database queries.Affected if The code uses the delid parameter directly in SQL queries without prepared statements or input sanitization.
A user is affected if the Beauty Parlour Management System version 1.1 is installed, the /admin/invoices.php file exists, and the delid parameter is used in unsanitized 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 dataApply input validation and use parameterized queries (prepared statements) for all database operations involving user-supplied input, particularly the delid parameter in invoices.php. Restrict database permissions to the principle of least privilege.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-11416 — 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-2025-11416 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