CVE-2026-10256
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 Content Management System 1.0. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /save_comment.php. The manipulation of the argument Name leads to sql injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. 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 · high confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in the Name parameter of /save_comment.php in itsourcecode Content Management System 1.0 allows remote attackers to inject malicious SQL queries. The CVSS 6.3 score suggests authenticated or limited-scope exploitation is possible.
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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Confirm itsourcecode CMS installationLocate the CMS installation directory and check for version identifiers in metadata files, headers, or the main index pageAffected if The system is running itsourcecode Content Management System version 1.0
-
Verify save_comment.php existsCheck for the presence of /save_comment.php in the web root or admin directory of the CMS installationAffected if The file save_comment.php exists and is accessible via the web server
-
Inspect the Name parameter handlingOpen save_comment.php and examine how the 'Name' POST/GET parameter is processed. Search for the line where $_POST['Name'] or $_GET['Name'] is used in SQL query constructionAffected if The 'Name' parameter is directly concatenated into an SQL query string without using prepared statements, parameter binding, or escaping functions
-
Check for SQL query construction methodSearch the save_comment.php file for SQL query patterns: look for SELECT, INSERT, or UPDATE statements that include the Name variable. Determine if they use mysqli_prepare, PDO::prepare, or parameterized bindingAffected if SQL queries containing the Name parameter are built using string concatenation rather than prepared statements or parameter binding
-
Test parameter sanitization presenceExamine the code for any input validation or escaping functions applied to the Name parameter before SQL usage, such as mysqli_real_escape_string, htmlspecialchars, or custom sanitization functionsAffected if No sanitization, escaping, or validation functions are applied to the Name parameter before it is used in SQL queries
The environment is affected if running itsourcecode CMS 1.0 with the save_comment.php file present and the Name parameter being used in unsanitized 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 dataReplace dynamic SQL queries with parameterized queries/prepared statements and implement proper input validation on the Name parameter. If no patch is available from the vendor, apply input sanitization as a compensating control.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10256 — 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-2026-10256 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