CVE-2025-52914
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 in the Suite Applications Services component of Mitel MiCollab 10.0 through SP1 FP1 (10.0.1.101) could allow an authenticated attacker to conduct a SQL Injection attack due to insufficient validation of user input. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary SQL database commands.
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 confidenceA SQL injection vulnerability exists in Mitel MiCollab Suite Applications Services versions 10.0 through SP1 FP1 (10.0.1.101). An authenticated attacker can inject arbitrary SQL commands through insufficiently validated user input fields, potentially allowing complete database compromise.
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< 9.8.3.103>= 10.0.0.26, < 10.1.0.10CVSS 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 MiCollab installationCheck for Mitel MiCollab installation by looking for the application directory (commonly in C:\Program Files\Mitel\MiCollab or /opt/mitel/micollab on Linux), or check running services for 'MiCollab' or 'Mitel' processes.Affected if MiCollab is not installed or the service is not found.
-
Determine installed MiCollab versionAccess the MiCollab administration interface and navigate to About or System Information page, or check the version information in the installation directory (look for version.txt, info.xml, or similar version manifest files).Affected if Unable to determine the version from administrative interface or installation files.
-
Compare version against affected rangesCompare your installed version against the affected ranges: versions less than 9.8.3.103, OR versions from 10.0.0.26 through 10.0.1.100 (or before 10.1.0.10).Affected if Installed version falls within < 9.8.3.103 OR >= 10.0.0.26 AND < 10.1.0.10.
-
Verify Applications Services component statusIn MiCollab admin console, navigate to Services or Applications section to confirm if Applications Services module is enabled and accessible.Affected if Applications Services is enabled and accessible to authenticated users.
-
Check authentication exposureReview accessible user input fields in the Applications Services web interface (typically under collaboration, messaging, or user management sections) where authenticated users can submit data.Affected if The Applications Services web interface is exposed with user input fields accessible to authenticated users.
You are affected if MiCollab Suite Applications Services is installed AND the version falls within the vulnerable ranges (< 9.8.3.103 or >= 10.0.0.26 to < 10.1.0.10) AND the Applications Services component with user input fields is enabled and accessible to authenticated users.
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 · scoped9.8.3.10310.1.0.10
Apply Mitel's security patch for MiCollab SP1 FP1 (10.0.1.101) or later to remediate the input validation flaw. If immediate patching is not feasible, implement strict input sanitization and consider WAF rules to block SQL injection payloads.
9.8.3.103 for 9.x branch; 10.1.0.10 for 10.x branch
- Contact Mitel support or reference official MiCollab upgrade documentation for your specific version branch
- Download the appropriate patched version: 9.8.3.103 for 9.x branch or 10.1.0.10 for 10.x branch
- Review Mitel upgrade prerequisites and downtime requirements
- Execute upgrade following vendor-provided procedures
- Verify the upgrade was successful and test that the SQL injection vulnerability is no longer present
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,992.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-52914 — 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-2025-52914 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