CVE-2025-63531VulnerabilityPublished 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-63531: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 10.0 Critical.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

10.0Critical

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AC:L/AV:N/A:N/C:H/I:H/PR:N/S:C/UI:N

Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Vector: Network
Availability: None
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Privileges Required: None
Scope: Changed
User Interaction: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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).
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation steps include conducting a thorough code audit of the receiverLogin.php component and all SQL query constructions to identify and remediate unsafe input handling. Developers should implement parameterized queries or prepared statements to prevent SQL injection. Input validation and sanitization should be enforced on all user-supplied data, particularly the remail and rpassword fields. Organizations should monitor logs for unusual login attempts or SQL errors indicative of exploitation attempts. Network-level protections such as web application firewalls (WAFs) can provide temporary defense by blocking suspicious payloads targeting SQL injection. Given the absence of official patches, organizations should consider isolating or restricting access to the vulnerable system until remediation is complete. Regular backups and incident response plans should be updated to prepare for potential exploitation. Finally, organizations should engage with vendors or developers for official patches and updates as soon as they become available.

Description

A SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Blood Bank Management System 1.0 within the receiverLogin.php component. The application fails to properly sanitize user-supplied input in SQL queries, allowing an attacker to inject arbitrary SQL code. By manipulating the remail and rpassword fields, an attacker can bypass authentication and gain unauthorized access to the system.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in the healthcare sector using the Blood Bank Management System 1.0, this vulnerability poses a severe risk. Exploitation can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive patient data, including blood donation records and personal health information, violating GDPR and other data protection regulations. The integrity of the system can be compromised, allowing attackers to alter or delete critical data, potentially disrupting blood bank operations and patient care. Availability may also be impacted if attackers execute destructive SQL commands or leverage the access to deploy ransomware or other malware. The reputational damage and regulatory penalties following a breach could be substantial. Given the critical nature of healthcare infrastructure, such an attack could also have broader public health implications. The vulnerability’s remote and unauthenticated exploitability increases the attack surface, making it a prime target for cybercriminals and potentially nation-state actors interested in healthcare data.

CWE-89Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #2OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Query Parameterization (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Expanding Control over the Operating System from the Database (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Dec 2025, 16:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-89

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats