CVE-2025-11106VulnerabilityPublished 28 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-11106: code-projects Simple Scheduling System · SQL Injection

Affects code-projects Simple Scheduling SystemSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
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 28 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 2026-10-25.

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
code-projects Simple Scheduling System	Affected =1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately audit their use of the Simple Scheduling System version 1.0 and assess exposure of the addfaculty.php endpoint. Since no official patches are currently available, implement the following mitigations: 1) Apply strict input validation and sanitization on the 'falname' parameter, ideally replacing vulnerable code with parameterized queries or prepared statements to prevent SQL injection. 2) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block SQL injection payloads targeting this endpoint. 3) Restrict network access to the scheduling system, limiting it to trusted internal IP ranges or VPN access to reduce exposure to remote attackers. 4) Monitor application logs and database logs for suspicious queries or anomalies indicative of injection attempts. 5) Educate development and operations teams about secure coding practices to prevent similar vulnerabilities. 6) Plan for an upgrade or replacement of the affected software with a secure, actively maintained alternative. 7) If possible, isolate the scheduling system database with least privilege access controls to minimize damage from potential exploitation.

Description

A vulnerability has been found in code-projects Simple Scheduling System 1.0. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /schedulingsystem/addfaculty.php. Such manipulation of the argument falname leads to sql injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant if the Simple Scheduling System is used to manage critical scheduling data, particularly in educational institutions, public sector organizations, or private companies relying on this software for resource planning. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive scheduling information, manipulation of faculty or resource data, and potential disruption of organizational operations. Confidentiality breaches could expose personal data of staff or students, raising compliance concerns under GDPR. Integrity violations could corrupt scheduling data, causing operational inefficiencies or reputational damage. Availability impacts could disrupt scheduling services, affecting organizational productivity. The remote and unauthenticated nature of the exploit increases the risk of widespread attacks, especially if attackers automate exploitation attempts. European organizations with limited cybersecurity resources or lacking timely patch management processes are particularly vulnerable. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate it, as public disclosure often precedes active exploitation campaigns.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Oct 2025, 00:44 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats