CVE-2025-46458
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 · uneditedCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in x000x occupancyplan occupancyplan allows SQL Injection.This issue affects occupancyplan: from n/a through <= 1.0.3.0.
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 confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) protection is missing or insufficient in x000x occupancyplan v1.0.3.0 and earlier, allowing attackers to trick authenticated users into executing unintended requests. This CSRF weakness enables injection of malicious SQL queries through those crafted requests, as the application likely lacks proper input validation or parameterized queries.
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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Check installed version of occupancyplanLocate the application version file, about page, or version API endpoint. Common paths include /version, /about, or version info in the footer/header. Compare against v1.0.3.0.Affected if Installed version is v1.0.3.0 or earlier
-
Inspect web forms for CSRF token presenceView the HTML source of key forms (login, user management, search, data submission). Look for a hidden input field containing a random token value, typically named csrf_token, csrf, token, or similar.Affected if Forms lack a hidden CSRF token field or the token value is static/predictable
-
Verify server-side CSRF validation logicExamine server-side code for CSRF validation routines. Check if incoming POST/PUT/DELETE requests validate a token against the session. Look for validation of Origin or Referer headers.Affected if Server code does not validate CSRF tokens or request origins before processing state-changing requests
-
Review database query implementationInspect application source code for SQL queries. Determine whether queries use parameterized queries, prepared statements, or ORM methods, versus string concatenation or raw SQL building.Affected if SQL queries are constructed using string concatenation or raw SQL without parameterized binding
-
Test CSRF vulnerability with a proof-of-concept requestCreate a malicious HTML page that submits a crafted form to the application endpoint. If the request succeeds without a CSRF token or with an invalid token, the protection is bypassable.Affected if State-changing requests (data insertion, modification, deletion) succeed with forged requests lacking valid CSRF tokens
The environment is affected if occupancyplan v1.0.3.0 or earlier is running AND the application lacks CSRF token validation AND uses unsafe SQL query construction.
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 anti-CSRF tokens and validate request origins, combined with parameterized queries or prepared statements for all database operations to prevent SQL injection.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46458 — 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-2025-46458 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