CVE-2025-60798
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 · uneditedphpPgAdmin 7.13.0 and earlier contains a SQL injection vulnerability in display.php at line 396. The application passes user-controlled input from $_REQUEST['query'] directly to the browseQuery function without proper sanitization. An authenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary SQL commands through malicious query manipulation, potentially leading to complete database compromise.
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 phpPgAdmin 7.13.0 and earlier where the $_REQUEST['query'] parameter is passed directly to the browseQuery function in display.php (line 396) without sanitization, allowing authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands.
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<= 7.13.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 phpPgAdmin versionLocate the phpPgAdmin installation and check its version file or changelog. Compare the installed version to the affected range: <= 7.13.0Affected if The installed version is 7.13.0 or earlier
-
Locate vulnerable display.php fileFind the display.php file in the phpPgAdmin installation directory and verify it exists. This is the file containing the vulnerable browseQuery function at line 396Affected if display.php exists in the phpPgAdmin installation and contains the browseQuery function
-
Examine query parameter handlingInspect the display.php file around line 396 and locate the browseQuery function. Verify whether the $_REQUEST['query'] parameter is used directly in SQL queries without sanitization or parameterized queriesAffected if The $_REQUEST['query'] parameter is passed directly to SQL without sanitization or prepared statements in the browseQuery function
-
Verify phpPgAdmin is accessibleConfirm that phpPgAdmin is accessible over the network or locally to authenticated users. Check if the web interface is exposed and functionalAffected if phpPgAdmin is accessible and accepts authentication, allowing the query parameter to be submitted
A user is affected if they are running phpPgAdmin version 7.13.0 or earlier and the display.php file contains the vulnerable browseQuery function that uses $_REQUEST['query'] without sanitization.
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 proper input validation and use parameterized queries for the query parameter in display.php; upgrade to a patched version if available.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-60798 — 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-2025-60798 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