CVE-2026-10249
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 was identified in itsourcecode Online Blood Bank Management System 1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /admin/viewrequest.php. Such manipulation of the argument ID leads to sql injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might 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 · moderate confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in itsourcecode Online Blood Bank Management System 1.0 allows remote attackers to inject malicious SQL queries via the ID parameter in /admin/viewrequest.php. The lack of input sanitization or parameterized queries enables attackers to manipulate database 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 the application versionLocate the installed files of itsourcecode Online Blood Bank Management System and check version.txt, README, or any version identifier within the source code. Compare against version 1.0.Affected if The installed version is 1.0 or earlier and has not been patched.
-
Verify the vulnerable file existsCheck if the file /admin/viewrequest.php exists in the web root or application directory.Affected if The file /admin/viewrequest.php is present in the deployment.
-
Confirm web server exposureDetermine if the /admin/ directory is accessible over HTTP/HTTPS from the network. Attempt to access the viewrequest.php endpoint.Affected if The admin interface and viewrequest.php are accessible without authentication or with low-privilege access.
-
Inspect the ID parameter handlingReview the source code of viewrequest.php and locate where the ID parameter is used in SQL queries. Look for unsanitized use of $_GET['id'] or $_POST['id'] directly in query strings.Affected if The ID parameter is used in SQL queries without parameterized statements, prepared statements, or input sanitization.
-
Check for SQL injection indicatorsReview web server access logs and application logs for unusual SQL syntax, error messages containing SQL keywords, or multiple failed queries with numeric or string payloads in the ID parameter.Affected if Logs show SQL error messages, suspicious SQL fragments in requests, or patterns consistent with injection probing.
You are affected if you run itsourcecode Online Blood Bank Management System version 1.0, the file /admin/viewrequest.php is accessible, and the ID parameter is not sanitized before use in SQL queries.
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 prepared statements/parameterized queries for the ID parameter in viewrequest.php, or add proper input validation and escaping to prevent SQL injection attacks.
- 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-2026-10249 — 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-2026-10249 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