CVE-2026-9526
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 found in itsourcecode Electronic Judging System 1.0. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /admin/edit_team.php. The manipulation of the argument num_id results in sql injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could 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 confidenceA SQL injection vulnerability exists in the /admin/edit_team.php file of itsourcecode Electronic Judging System 1.0. The 'num_id' parameter is not properly sanitized, allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary SQL queries. This high-severity (CVSS 7.3) flaw could enable unauthorized database access, data exfiltration, or full system compromise.
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 if Electronic Judging System is installedSearch the web root directory for itsourcecode Electronic Judging System files, or check for the presence of /admin/ directory and edit_team.phpAffected if The system is not installed or the files are not present, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Verify the product version is 1.0Check version.php, README, or any version file in the application root for version number; compare against the affected version 1.0Affected if The installed version is not 1.0, the specific vulnerability may not apply
-
Confirm /admin/edit_team.php existsLocate and verify the presence of edit_team.php in the /admin/ directory of the web applicationAffected if The file edit_team.php does not exist, the vulnerability cannot be exploited
-
Check if admin interface is accessibleAttempt to access the /admin/ login page or edit_team.php directly via HTTP/HTTPS to determine if the admin panel is exposedAffected if The admin interface is not accessible (e.g., behind authentication or network restriction), the SQL injection is not exploitable remotely
-
Inspect the num_id parameter handling in edit_team.phpReview the source code of edit_team.php to confirm the num_id parameter is used in a database query without proper sanitization or prepared statementsAffected if The num_id parameter uses parameterized queries or is properly sanitized, the vulnerability may be mitigated
A user is affected if they run Electronic Judging System version 1.0 with the /admin/edit_team.php file accessible and the num_id parameter 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 in edit_team.php with parameterized queries (prepared statements) to properly sanitize the num_id parameter input. Review and audit other files in the application for similar SQL injection vulnerabilities as a precautionary measure.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9526 — 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-2026-9526 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