CVE-2025-2869
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 · uneditedReflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in version 1.0 of the Clinic Queuing System. This vulnerability could allow an attacker to execute JavaScript code in the victim's browser by sending a malicious URL through the id parameter in /manage_user.php.
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 confidenceReflected XSS vulnerability in the Clinic Queuing System version 1.0 allows execution of arbitrary JavaScript in victim's browser via the id parameter in /manage_user.php. The attacker crafts a malicious URL containing payload in the id parameter that gets reflected back to the user without proper sanitization or output encoding.
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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 Clinic Queuing System versionLocate and inspect the application files, typically in the web root directory, to find version information. Check for version files, readme files, or footer content that displays the version number.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.0 of Oretnom23 Clinic Queuing System.
-
Confirm manage_user.php existsCheck if the file manage_user.php exists in the application's web-accessible directory, typically under the web root or public_html folder.Affected if The file /manage_user.php is present in the application installation.
-
Inspect the id parameter handlingOpen manage_user.php and locate the code that handles the id parameter. Look for how $_GET['id'] or similar request parameters are processed and whether they are used in HTML output without sanitization.Affected if The id parameter is directly echoed or printed back to the HTML response without proper sanitization or output encoding.
-
Test for reflected XSS in the id parameterCraft a test URL such as manage_user.php?id=<script>alert('test')</script> and request it in a browser or using a tool like curl. Observe if the script tag is reflected verbatim in the response.Affected if The id parameter value is reflected in the response without HTML encoding, allowing script execution.
The user is affected if they are running Oretnom23 Clinic Queuing System version 1.0 and the manage_user.php file processes the id parameter without sanitizing or encoding output.
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 output encoding for the id parameter in manage_user.php. Use context-appropriate encoding (HTML entity encoding) when reflecting user input back to the browser. Consider implementing Content Security Policy (CSP) headers as a defense-in-depth measure.
- 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-2025-2869 — 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-2025-2869 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