CVE-2025-2358
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 Shenzhen Mingyuan Cloud Technology Mingyuan Real Estate ERP System 1.0. It has been rated as critical. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /Kfxt/Service.asmx of the component HTTP Header Handler. The manipulation of the argument X-Forwarded-For leads to sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 X-Forwarded-For HTTP header handler of /Kfxt/Service.asmx in Mingyuan Real Estate ERP System 1.0 allows remote attackers to inject malicious SQL queries via the X-Forwarded-For header argument.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 Mingyuan Real Estate ERP System is installedCheck the web server for presence of the application by looking for directories or files related to 'Kfxt' or 'Mingyuan Real Estate ERP'. Common paths may include /Kfxt/, /ERP/, or application installation directories on the web server.Affected if The Mingyuan Real Estate ERP System is found on the server
-
Confirm the application versionLocate version information for the installed ERP system. Check for version files, about pages, or application metadata that indicates the exact version number.Affected if The installed version is Mingyuan Real Estate ERP System 1.0
-
Verify the vulnerable endpoint is accessibleTest if the /Kfxt/Service.asmx endpoint is reachable by sending a request to the application's web server at the path /Kfxt/Service.asmx. Look for a response indicating the ASMX service is present.Affected if The /Kfxt/Service.asmx endpoint returns a valid response (indicating the service exists)
-
Determine if X-Forwarded-For header processing is activeSend a request to the application with an X-Forwarded-For header containing a test value (e.g., 'X-Forwarded-For: 1.1.1.1') and observe if the application processes or logs this header. Check application logs or behavior to confirm header handling.Affected if The application processes or accepts the X-Forwarded-For header without validation
The environment is affected if Mingyuan Real Estate ERP System version 1.0 is installed with the /Kfxt/Service.asmx endpoint accessible and the application processes X-Forwarded-For headers without proper input validation.
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 proper input validation and use parameterized queries/prepared statements for all database interactions. Consider deploying a WAF rule to block SQL injection attempts in HTTP headers until the code-level fix is applied.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-2358 — 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-2025-2358 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