VulnerabilityPublished 5 Jan 2026Updated 23 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-15450: sfturing hosp_order · SQL Injection

Affects sfturing hosp_orderSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% 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 5 Jan 2026
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 26 Oct 2026.

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
sfturinghosp_order	Affected =627f426331da8086ce8fff2017d65b1ddef384f8	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of vendor patches, organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. First, restrict network access to the hosp_order application by implementing strict firewall rules and network segmentation to limit exposure to trusted internal networks only. Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block SQL injection patterns targeting hospitalAddress and hospitalName parameters. Conduct thorough input validation and sanitization at the application layer, if possible, by applying parameterized queries or prepared statements to prevent injection. Monitor application logs for suspicious query patterns or anomalies indicative of injection attempts. If feasible, perform code review and patch the vulnerable function internally to enforce proper input handling. Regularly back up databases and implement robust incident response plans to quickly recover from potential compromises. Finally, maintain heightened vigilance for emerging exploits and consider migrating to alternative, actively supported software solutions if vendor support remains absent.

Description

A vulnerability was identified in sfturing hosp_order up to 627f426331da8086ce8fff2017d65b1ddef384f8. Affected by this vulnerability is the function findOrderHosNum of the file /ssm_pro/orderHos/. Such manipulation of the argument hospitalAddress/hospitalName leads to sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The SQL injection vulnerability in sfturing hosp_order can lead to unauthorized access and manipulation of sensitive hospital order data, potentially exposing patient information, disrupting hospital operations, and undermining data integrity. Attackers could extract confidential data, modify or delete records, or execute arbitrary SQL commands, which may result in data breaches, loss of trust, and regulatory non-compliance, especially in healthcare environments subject to strict data protection laws. The remote exploitability without authentication increases the risk of widespread attacks, particularly if the software is exposed to the internet or accessible within insecure networks. The lack of vendor response and absence of patches exacerbate the threat, leaving organizations vulnerable to exploitation. While no active exploitation is currently known, the availability of public exploit code lowers the barrier for attackers to launch successful attacks. The impact extends to operational disruption, potential financial losses, and reputational damage for healthcare providers using this product.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 23 Feb 2026, 23:05 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats