CVE-2025-10121VulnerabilityPublished 9 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10121: uverif · SQL Injection

Affects uverifSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
uverif	Affected =3.0 =3.1 =3.2	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should include restricting access to the /admin/kami_list endpoint through network-level controls such as IP whitelisting, VPN access, or firewall rules to limit exposure to trusted users only. 2. Implement Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules specifically designed to detect and block SQL injection attempts targeting the 'note' parameter in the addbatch function. 3. Conduct a thorough code review and input validation enhancement for the addbatch function to sanitize and parameterize SQL queries, eliminating direct concatenation of user input. 4. If possible, upgrade to a patched version of uverif once available; in the absence of an official patch, consider applying custom patches or workarounds that enforce prepared statements or ORM usage. 5. Monitor logs for suspicious activity related to the /admin/kami_list endpoint, focusing on anomalous input patterns or repeated access attempts. 6. Educate administrators and developers about the risks of SQL injection and enforce secure coding practices to prevent similar vulnerabilities. 7. Perform regular vulnerability scanning and penetration testing to detect any exploitation attempts or residual vulnerabilities in the application environment.

Description

A flaw has been found in uverif up to 3.2. This affects the function addbatch of the file /admin/kami_list. This manipulation of the argument note causes sql injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations using uverif versions 3.0 to 3.2, this vulnerability poses a tangible risk to the confidentiality and integrity of their data. Since uverif is presumably used in administrative or verification contexts, exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive administrative data or manipulation of critical records. This could result in data breaches, compliance violations (notably with GDPR), and operational disruptions. The remote and unauthenticated nature of the exploit increases the attack surface, especially for organizations exposing the affected endpoint to the internet or internal networks with insufficient segmentation. The medium severity suggests that while the impact is not catastrophic, it is significant enough to warrant prompt remediation to prevent potential data loss or unauthorized data alteration. Additionally, the publication of an exploit increases the likelihood of opportunistic attacks targeting European entities, especially those in sectors with high regulatory scrutiny or valuable data assets.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…