CVE-2025-13121VulnerabilityPublished 13 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-13121: cameasy Liketea · SQL Injection

Affects cameasy LiketeaSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 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 34% 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 Nov 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
GitHubictrun/liketea-sql-injection`pkg:github/ictrun/liketea-sql-injection`Other threats	Affected =1.0.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

1. Immediate application of vendor patches or updates once available is the most effective mitigation. 2. In the absence of patches, implement strict input validation and sanitization on the lng/lat parameters at the API gateway or web application firewall (WAF) level to block malicious payloads. 3. Refactor the vulnerable code to use prepared statements or parameterized queries to prevent SQL injection. 4. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) tools to detect and block injection attempts in real-time. 5. Monitor API logs and network traffic for unusual query patterns or spikes in error rates indicative of exploitation attempts. 6. Conduct code audits and penetration testing focused on input handling and database interactions to identify and remediate similar vulnerabilities. 7. Educate developers on secure coding practices, emphasizing the dangers of unsanitized input in SQL queries. 8. Limit database user privileges to the minimum necessary to reduce the impact of a successful injection attack. 9. Deploy anomaly detection systems to alert on suspicious activities related to the affected API endpoints. 10. Prepare incident response plans tailored to SQL injection incidents to minimize damage and recovery time.

Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in cameasy Liketea 1.0.0. Impacted is the function list of the file laravel/app/Http/Controllers/Front/StoreController.php of the component API Endpoint. Such manipulation of the argument lng/lat leads to sql injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations using cameasy Liketea 1.0.0, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of their data. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive customer or business data, data corruption, or disruption of service availability. Retailers and e-commerce platforms relying on this software could suffer financial losses, reputational damage, and regulatory penalties under GDPR if personal data is exposed. The remote, unauthenticated nature of the attack vector increases the likelihood of exploitation by external threat actors, including cybercriminals targeting European markets. Additionally, the public disclosure of the vulnerability may lead to automated scanning and exploitation attempts, increasing the urgency for mitigation. The impact is particularly critical for organizations with large customer databases or those integrated with payment processing systems. Operational disruptions could also arise if attackers manipulate or delete critical data, affecting business continuity.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…