CVE-2025-60239
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 · uneditedImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability in Codexpert, Inc CoSchool LMS coschool allows Blind SQL Injection.This issue affects CoSchool LMS: from n/a through <= 1.4.3.
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 Blind SQL Injection vulnerability exists in CoSchool LMS version 1.4.3 and below, allowing authenticated or unauthenticated attackers (depending on the attack vector) to inject malicious SQL queries. The vulnerability stems from improper neutralization of special elements in SQL commands, enabling attackers to extract data by inferring true/false conditions from application responses.
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
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Identify CoSchool LMS installationSearch the web server for files containing 'CoSchool' or 'coschool' in filenames, or look for the LMS application directory structureAffected if CoSchool LMS software is present on the server
-
Check installed versionLocate version information in the application (typically in a config file, README, or the LMS admin interface footer) and compare to 1.4.3Affected if The installed version is 1.4.3 or lower
-
Identify SQL-facing input pointsReview application source code for SQL query execution functions (e.g., mysql_query, mysqli_query, PDO query, raw SQL execution) that accept user-supplied parameters from HTTP requestsAffected if The application executes SQL queries using input derived from request parameters without parameterized queries
-
Test for blind SQL injectionSubmit SQL injection test payloads (e.g., time-based sleep commands or boolean true/false conditions) to identified input fields and observe differential response times or contentAffected if The application exhibits different behavior (delayed responses or varying output) based on injected SQL conditions, indicating the input is not properly sanitized before use in SQL execution
-
Verify authentication requirementsAttempt SQL injection tests against public-facing endpoints without logging in, and against authenticated-only endpoints after logging inAffected if The vulnerability is reachable without authentication or with standard user credentials
You are affected if CoSchool LMS version 1.4.3 or lower is installed and user-controlled input is used in SQL queries without prepared statements or proper escaping.
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 across all database interactions. Apply input validation and least-privilege database accounts as defense-in-depth measures.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-60239 — 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-2025-60239 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