CVE-2025-32822
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 has been identified in TeleControl Server Basic (All versions < V3.1.2.2). The affected application is vulnerable to SQL injection through the internally used 'DeleteProject' method. This could allow an authenticated remote attacker to bypass authorization controls, to read from and write to the application's database and execute code with "NT AUTHORITY\NetworkService" permissions. A successful attack requires the attacker to be able to access port 8000 on a system where a vulnerable version of the affected application is executed on.
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 TeleControl Server Basic (versions < V3.1.2.2) in the 'DeleteProject' method allows authenticated remote attackers to bypass authorization, read/write to the database, and execute code with NT AUTHORITY\NetworkService privileges. Attack requires network access to port 8000.
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< 3.1.2.2CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 TeleControl Server Basic installationLocate the TeleControl Server Basic installation directory and identify the installed software version. Common locations include C:\Program Files\Siemens\ or check Windows Services for 'TeleControl Server Basic' service.Affected if TeleControl Server Basic is installed and version is below 3.1.2.2
-
Verify the vulnerable versionCheck the version of TeleControl Server Basic by reviewing the software's About dialog, installation logs, or version information in the program directory.Affected if Installed version is lower than 3.1.2.2 (e.g., 3.1.1.x, 3.1.0.x, earlier versions)
-
Confirm port 8000 is exposedCheck if port 8000 is listening and accessible from the network using 'netstat -an | findstr :8000' or by reviewing firewall rules.Affected if Port 8000 is open and accepting connections from untrusted network segments
-
Review DeleteProject method accessAudit the web service or API configuration to confirm the DeleteProject method is exposed and accessible via the TeleControl Server interface.Affected if DeleteProject method is enabled and reachable without additional authentication controls
-
Check for suspicious request logsReview TeleControl Server Basic logs for unusual or malformed DeleteProject requests, especially from unexpected IP addresses or containing SQL-like patterns.Affected if Logs show abnormal DeleteProject calls with SQL injection patterns or unauthorized access attempts
A system is affected if TeleControl Server Basic version is below 3.1.2.2, port 8000 is exposed to untrusted networks, and the DeleteProject method is accessible.
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.
dbcve · scoped3.1.2.2
Upgrade TeleControl Server Basic to version V3.1.2.2 or later to remediate the SQL injection vulnerability.
V3.1.2.2
- 1. Obtain the fixed version V3.1.2.2 of TeleControl Server Basic from the official Siemens download portal or support channels.
- 2. Create a complete backup of the current TeleControl Server Basic installation including all configuration files and the database.
- 3. Stop the TeleControl Server Basic service to ensure no active connections during the upgrade.
- 4. Install or apply version V3.1.2.2 of TeleControl Server Basic following the vendor's standard upgrade procedures.
- 5. Restart the TeleControl Server Basic service.
- 6. Verify the installation was successful by checking that the application is running and the version displays as V3.1.2.2 or higher.
- 7. Confirm the vulnerability is remediated by validating that the 'DeleteProject' method no longer accepts SQL injection payloads.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-32822 — 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-2025-32822 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