CVE-2025-9832
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 security vulnerability has been detected in SourceCodester Food Ordering Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /routers/register-router.php. Such manipulation of the argument phone leads to sql injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.
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 SourceCodester Food Ordering Management System 1.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the phone parameter in /routers/register-router.php. The lack of parameterized queries or input sanitization on this registration endpoint enables unauthenticated attackers to manipulate SQL queries.
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= 1.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 the application versionCheck the installed version of the SourceCodester/Oretnom23 Food Ordering Management System by reviewing application documentation, footer, or version file. Compare against version 1.0.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.0.
-
Locate the vulnerable registration scriptVerify the presence of /routers/register-router.php in the web application directory.Affected if The file /routers/register-router.php exists on the server.
-
Inspect the phone parameter handlingExamine the source code of /routers/register-router.php and locate the SQL query that processes the phone parameter. Look for direct concatenation of the phone input into the SQL statement without using prepared statements or parameter binding.Affected if The phone parameter is directly concatenated into the SQL query without parameterized queries or input sanitization.
-
Verify endpoint accessibilityConfirm that the registration endpoint is publicly accessible without authentication by accessing the registration page or directly posting to /routers/register-router.php.Affected if The registration endpoint is exposed and reachable without authentication.
A user is affected if they are running exactly version 1.0 of the Food Ordering Management System and the register-router.php file with the vulnerable phone parameter is exposed.
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 prepared statements/parameterized queries for the phone parameter, implement input validation, and apply principle of least privilege to the database user. Consider deploying a web application firewall as an interim control.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-9832 — 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-2025-9832 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