CVE-2025-11662VulnerabilityPublished 13 Oct 2025Updated 14 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-11662: SourceCodester Best Salon Management System · SQL Injection

Affects SourceCodester Best Salon Management 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 40% 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 13 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 Best Salon Management System	Affected =1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should focus on implementing web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block SQL injection attempts targeting the serv_id parameter in /booking.php. Organizations should conduct code audits to identify and remediate unsafe SQL query constructions, replacing them with parameterized queries or prepared statements. Input validation should be enforced to restrict serv_id to expected data types and ranges. Until an official patch is released, consider isolating the affected system from public networks or restricting access via VPN or IP whitelisting. Regularly monitor logs for suspicious query patterns or repeated access attempts to /booking.php. Backup critical data frequently to enable recovery in case of data tampering or loss. Engage with the vendor or community for updates on patches or mitigations. Additionally, educate staff about the risks and signs of exploitation to enhance detection capabilities. For long-term security, consider migrating to more secure and actively maintained salon management solutions.

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester Best Salon Management System 1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /booking.php. The manipulation of the argument serv_id results in sql injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly small and medium enterprises in the salon and wellness industry using SourceCodester Best Salon Management System 1.0, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized disclosure of customer data, including personal and booking information, damaging customer trust and violating data protection regulations such as GDPR. Data integrity could be compromised, allowing attackers to alter booking records or service details, disrupting business operations. Availability impacts may arise if attackers execute destructive SQL commands, potentially causing service outages. Given the lack of authentication requirements, attackers can exploit this remotely, increasing the attack surface. The presence of a public exploit raises the likelihood of automated scanning and exploitation attempts. European organizations may face regulatory penalties and reputational damage if breaches occur. The impact is somewhat mitigated by the niche use of this specific software, but businesses relying on it without compensating controls remain vulnerable.

Summary

CVE-2025-11662 identifies a SQL injection vulnerability in the SourceCodester Best Salon Management System version 1.0, specifically within the /booking.php script. The vulnerability arises from improper sanitization of the serv_id parameter, which is directly used in SQL queries without adequate validation or parameterization. This flaw enables remote attackers to inject malicious SQL code, potentially allowing unauthorized access to the backend database, data exfiltration, or modification of records. The attack vector requires no authentication or user interaction, making it remotely exploitable over the network. The CVSS 4.0 vector (AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N) confirms that the attack can be launched with low complexity and no privileges. The vulnerability affects confidentiality, integrity, and availability, though the impact is limited by the scope of the affected system and the lack of privilege escalation. The Best Salon Management System is typically used by small to medium-sized businesses in the beauty and wellness sector, which may not have robust cybersecurity defenses, increasing their exposure. The vulnerability underscores the importance of secure coding practices, especially input validation and use of parameterized queries in web applications handling sensitive customer and booking data.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Oct 2025, 00:32 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats