CVE-2025-14650VulnerabilityPublished 14 Dec 2025Updated 15 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-14650: itsourcecode Online Cake Ordering System · SQL Injection

Affects itsourcecode Online Cake Ordering 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 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 14 Dec 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
itsourcecode Online Cake Ordering System	Affected =1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should focus on applying patches once available from itsourcecode or upgrading to a fixed version. In the absence of patches, organizations should implement strict input validation on the 'Product' parameter to ensure only expected values are accepted, using whitelisting techniques. Employ parameterized queries or prepared statements to prevent SQL injection by separating code from data. Restrict database user permissions to the minimum necessary, avoiding use of highly privileged accounts for web application database access. Implement Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block SQL injection patterns targeting the vulnerable endpoint. Monitor database logs and application logs for unusual query patterns or errors indicative of injection attempts. Conduct regular security assessments and code reviews to identify similar vulnerabilities. Educate developers on secure coding practices to prevent injection flaws in future releases. Finally, ensure compliance with GDPR by securing customer data and having incident response plans in place in case of data breaches.

Description

A flaw has been found in itsourcecode Online Cake Ordering System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /cakeshop/product.php. Executing manipulation of the argument Product can lead to sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses operating online food ordering platforms or similar e-commerce systems. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized disclosure of customer personal data, including payment information if stored in the same database, violating GDPR and other data protection regulations. Integrity of order data could be compromised, leading to fraudulent orders or disruption of business operations. Availability impacts could result in denial of service, affecting customer trust and revenue. The moderate CVSS score reflects that while the vulnerability is exploitable remotely without authentication, the impact is partial rather than total compromise. However, the presence of published exploit code increases the risk of automated attacks and widespread exploitation. European companies may face regulatory fines and reputational damage if customer data is leaked. The threat is particularly relevant for organizations that have not implemented strong input validation or database security best practices. Additionally, the lack of official patches means organizations must rely on mitigations or vendor updates to fully remediate the issue.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Dec 2025, 08:26 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats