CVE-2025-41004
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 · uneditedImaster's Patient Records Management System is vulnerable to SQL Injection in the endpoint ‘/projects/hospital/admin/complaints.php’ through the ‘id’ parameter.
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 Imaster's Patient Records Management System where the 'id' parameter in /projects/hospital/admin/complaints.php is not properly sanitized, allowing attackers to inject malicious SQL queries and potentially extract, modify, or delete sensitive patient data from the database.
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
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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 the applicationCheck if your web application is Imaster's Patient Records Management System by reviewing application files, headers, or documentation. Look for branding, copyright notices, or application metadata that confirms the product name.Affected if The application is Imaster's Patient Records Management System
-
Locate the vulnerable fileSearch for the file /projects/hospital/admin/complaints.php in your web root directory. This file is part of the hospital admin module.Affected if The file /projects/hospital/admin/complaints.php exists in your installation
-
Verify the id parameter is usedOpen complaints.php and search for usage of the 'id' parameter in $_GET, $_POST, or $_REQUEST superglobals. Check how this parameter is handled in the code.Affected if The code processes an 'id' parameter from user input without sanitization
-
Check for SQL injection vulnerabilityReview the code around the 'id' parameter usage. Look for dynamic SQL query construction where 'id' is concatenated directly into the query string instead of using prepared statements or parameterized queries.Affected if The 'id' parameter is used in SQL queries without prepared statements, input validation, or escaping functions
-
Assess network exposureDetermine if the /projects/hospital/admin/ endpoint is accessible from the network. Check web server configuration and access control lists.Affected if The admin interface containing complaints.php is exposed to untrusted networks
Your environment is affected if you run Imaster's Patient Records Management System with the file /projects/hospital/admin/complaints.php present, and the 'id' parameter is processed in SQL queries without prepared statements or 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 dataReplace dynamic SQL queries with parameterized queries (prepared statements), implement strict input validation on the 'id' parameter, and apply least-privilege database accounts to limit the impact of any successful injection.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-41004 — 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-2025-41004 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