CVE-2026-9528
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 Electronic Judging System 1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /admin/delete_judge.php. Such manipulation of the argument judge_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 · high confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in itsourcecode Electronic Judging System 1.0 /admin/delete_judge.php where the judge_id parameter is not sanitized, allowing malicious SQL injection attacks. The exploit is publicly available and can be executed remotely.
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.
-
Verify Electronic Judging System installationSearch for itsourcecode Electronic Judging System files in your web root directory. Look for directories containing 'judging' or 'ejs' and check for the /admin/ folder structure.Affected if The application files are present on the server
-
Identify the installed versionCheck for version files, readme files, or meta information within the application root directory. Look for version numbers in any configuration or documentation files.Affected if The version is 1.0 or cannot be determined (treat as potentially affected)
-
Locate the vulnerable PHP fileNavigate to the /admin/ directory and verify the existence of delete_judge.php. Check the file path: [webroot]/admin/delete_judge.phpAffected if The file /admin/delete_judge.php exists in the web application
-
Verify admin access is enabledConfirm that the /admin/ directory is accessible without authentication restrictions. Check if the application allows unauthenticated or weakly authenticated access to administrative functions.Affected if The admin interface is accessible (either unauthenticated or with weak authentication)
-
Examine the judge_id parameter handlingInspect the delete_judge.php source code. Look for SQL queries that incorporate the judge_id parameter without proper sanitization or parameterized queries.Affected if The code contains dynamic SQL queries using judge_id without prepared statements or input validation
If the Electronic Judging System 1.0 is installed with the /admin/delete_judge.php file present and the judge_id parameter is handled without parameterized queries, the environment is affected by this SQL injection vulnerability.
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 parameterized queries (prepared statements) for the judge_id parameter in delete_judge.php and apply proper input validation. Additionally, enforce least-privilege database access and apply web application firewall rules as a temporary measure.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9528 — 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-2026-9528 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