CVE-2026-34102
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 · uneditedGuardian language-system passes the id GET parameter directly into an unsanitized SQL query in job_info_get.php (line 16): SELECT * FROM jobs where input1 = '\".$_GET['id'].\"'. An authenticated attacker can perform error-based SQL injection to extract database contents.
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 Guardian language-system where the id GET parameter is directly concatenated into an SQL query in job_info_get.php without sanitization or parameterization, allowing authenticated attackers to inject malicious SQL code via error-based injection.
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
- 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.
-
Locate job_info_get.phpSearch the web root directory for the file job_info_get.php (e.g., find /var/www -name 'job_info_get.php' or use a file search in your IDE)Affected if The file exists in the application deployment
-
Inspect the 'id' parameter handlingOpen job_info_get.php and examine how the 'id' GET parameter is retrieved and used in SQL queries. Look for $_GET['id'] or similar constructsAffected if The code uses $_GET['id'] directly without sanitization functions like htmlspecialchars, mysqli_real_escape_string, or prepared statements
-
Verify SQL query constructionLocate the SQL query in the file and check if the 'id' parameter is concatenated directly into the query string (e.g., $sql = "SELECT * FROM jobs WHERE id = " . $_GET['id'])Affected if The 'id' parameter is concatenated directly into the SQL query string without parameter binding or escaping
-
Confirm authentication requirementCheck if the file or surrounding code requires valid authentication before allowing the SQL query to execute (e.g., session checks, login verification)Affected if The file can be accessed without authentication or authentication can be easily bypassed, allowing unauthenticated SQL injection
-
Check for input sanitization or prepared statementsSearch the file for prepared statements (prepare, bind_param, execute), parameterized queries, or sanitization functions applied to the 'id' parameterAffected if No prepared statements or sanitization functions are found; the 'id' parameter is used raw in the query
You are affected if job_info_get.php exists and the 'id' GET parameter is directly concatenated into SQL queries without parameterized queries or input sanitization, and the endpoint is accessible to authenticated users.
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 direct string concatenation with parameterized queries (prepared statements), implement proper input validation, and ensure database accounts follow least-privilege principles.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-34102 — 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-2026-34102 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