VulnerabilityPublished 2 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-5433: Fengoffice Feng Office · SQL Injection

Affects Fengoffice Feng OfficeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 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 21% 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

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

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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 Jun 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 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
GitHubfengoffice/fengoffice`pkg:github/fengoffice/fengoffice`Other threats	Affected =3.5.1.5	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. These include: 1) Restricting external access to the Feng Office application by using network-level controls such as VPNs, IP whitelisting, or firewall rules to limit exposure. 2) Implementing web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block SQL injection attempts targeting the 'tz_offset' parameter. 3) Conducting thorough input validation and sanitization at the application or proxy level if possible, to filter malicious payloads. 4) Monitoring application logs for unusual database errors or suspicious activity related to the vulnerable endpoint. 5) Planning and prioritizing an upgrade or patch deployment once the vendor releases a fix or considering alternative project management solutions if a timely patch is unavailable. 6) Educating internal security teams about this vulnerability to enhance incident detection and response capabilities. 7) Regularly backing up critical data to enable recovery in case of data integrity compromise.

Description

A vulnerability was found in Fengoffice Feng Office 3.5.1.5 and classified as critical. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /index.php?c=account&a=set_timezone. The manipulation of the argument tz_offset leads to sql injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations using Feng Office 3.5.1.5, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of their project management and collaboration data. Successful exploitation could lead to data breaches involving sensitive business information, unauthorized data manipulation, or service disruption. This is particularly critical for sectors handling regulated or sensitive data such as finance, healthcare, legal, and government entities. The ability to remotely exploit this vulnerability without user interaction increases the attack surface, especially for organizations exposing Feng Office to the internet. Additionally, the lack of vendor response and absence of patches means organizations must rely on internal mitigations, increasing operational risk. The medium CVSS score suggests moderate risk, but the real-world impact could be higher depending on the deployment context and data sensitivity. Organizations could face compliance issues under GDPR if personal data is compromised, leading to potential legal and reputational consequences.

Summary

CVE-2025-5433 is a SQL Injection vulnerability identified in Fengoffice Feng Office version 3.5.1.5, specifically within the /index.php?c=account&a=set_timezone endpoint. The vulnerability arises from improper sanitization of the 'tz_offset' parameter, which can be manipulated by an attacker to inject malicious SQL code. This injection flaw allows an unauthenticated remote attacker with low privileges (PR:L) to execute arbitrary SQL commands on the backend database without requiring user interaction. The vulnerability affects confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the affected system, as attackers could potentially extract sensitive data, modify or delete records, or disrupt service availability. The CVSS 4.0 base score is 5.3 (medium severity), reflecting that while the attack vector is network-based and requires no user interaction, it does require some level of privileges (low privileges) and has limited impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Although no known exploits are currently reported in the wild, public disclosure of the exploit code increases the risk of exploitation. Given the nature of Feng Office as a collaborative project management and office suite platform, exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to project data, user information, and potentially sensitive business documents stored within the system.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Jul 2025, 12:41 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats