CVE-2025-11478VulnerabilityPublished 8 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-11478: SourceCodester Farm Management System · SQL Injection

Affects SourceCodester Farm Management SystemSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 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 26% 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 8 Oct 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
SourceCodester Farm Management System	Affected =1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Implement immediate input validation and sanitization for the 'pid' parameter in /myCart.php, ensuring only expected data types and formats are accepted. 2. Refactor database queries to use parameterized statements or prepared queries to prevent SQL injection. 3. Deploy web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block SQL injection attempts targeting the vulnerable endpoint. 4. Conduct thorough code reviews and security testing on all input handling components of the farm management system. 5. Monitor database logs and application logs for unusual query patterns or errors indicative of injection attempts. 6. Restrict database user privileges to the minimum necessary to limit potential damage from exploitation. 7. If vendor patches become available, apply them promptly. 8. Consider network segmentation to isolate the farm management system from critical infrastructure. 9. Educate IT staff and users about the risks and signs of exploitation attempts. 10. Maintain regular backups of critical data to enable recovery in case of data corruption or loss.

Description

A weakness has been identified in SourceCodester Farm Management System 1.0. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /myCart.php. This manipulation of the argument pid causes sql injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly those in the agricultural sector using SourceCodester Farm Management System 1.0, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized access to sensitive operational and customer data. Exploitation could lead to data breaches, loss of data integrity, and disruption of farm management processes, potentially affecting supply chains and business continuity. Given the nature of farm management systems, compromised data could include inventory details, transaction records, and client information, which may have regulatory implications under GDPR. The medium severity suggests moderate but tangible risks, especially if attackers leverage the vulnerability to pivot into broader network attacks. The availability of public exploit code increases the urgency for mitigation. Organizations lacking timely patches may face reputational damage and financial losses due to operational downtime or data compromise.

Summary

CVE-2025-11478 identifies a SQL injection vulnerability in SourceCodester Farm Management System version 1.0, specifically within the /myCart.php endpoint. The vulnerability arises from improper sanitization of the 'pid' parameter, which is used in SQL queries without adequate validation or parameterization. An attacker can remotely exploit this flaw by crafting malicious input for 'pid' to manipulate backend SQL queries, potentially extracting, modifying, or deleting database records. The vulnerability does not require authentication or user interaction, increasing its risk profile. The CVSS 4.0 score of 5.3 (medium severity) reflects the moderate impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, combined with low attack complexity and no privileges required. Although no active exploitation has been reported, public exploit code availability raises the likelihood of future attacks. The affected product is a farm management system, typically used by agricultural businesses to manage inventory, sales, and operations. The lack of vendor patches or official mitigations increases exposure. The vulnerability could lead to unauthorized data disclosure, data tampering, or denial of service, impacting business operations and compliance with data protection regulations. Organizations using this software should urgently review their systems, apply input validation, and consider network-level protections to mitigate exploitation risks.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Oct 2025, 14:12 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats