CVE-2025-6474VulnerabilityPublished 22 Jun 2025Updated 23 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-6474: code-projects Inventory Management System · SQL Injection

Affects code-projects Inventory Management 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 41% 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 22 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 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
GitHub1609624781/cve`pkg:github/1609624781/cve`Other threats	Affected =1.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Given the absence of official patches, European organizations should immediately implement compensating controls. These include: 1) Restricting network access to the /changeUsername.php endpoint by implementing strict firewall rules or web application firewall (WAF) policies to block or monitor suspicious SQL injection patterns targeting the 'user_id' parameter. 2) Employing input validation and parameterized queries or prepared statements at the application layer if source code access is available, to sanitize user inputs effectively. 3) Conducting thorough code audits and penetration testing focused on SQL injection vectors within the Inventory Management System. 4) Monitoring database logs and application logs for anomalous queries or failed login attempts that may indicate exploitation attempts. 5) Isolating the Inventory Management System in a segmented network zone to limit lateral movement in case of compromise. 6) Planning and prioritizing an upgrade or patch deployment once the vendor releases a fix. 7) Educating IT and security teams about the vulnerability to ensure rapid detection and response. These targeted measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific vulnerable endpoint and attack vector.

Description

A vulnerability has been found in code-projects Inventory Management System 1.0 and classified as critical. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /changeUsername.php. The manipulation of the argument user_id leads to sql injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing the code-projects Inventory Management System 1.0, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of their inventory and user data. Successful exploitation could result in unauthorized disclosure of sensitive business information, manipulation of inventory records, or disruption of inventory management operations. This could lead to financial losses, regulatory non-compliance (especially under GDPR due to potential exposure of personal data), and reputational damage. Organizations in sectors such as retail, manufacturing, and logistics that rely heavily on inventory management systems are particularly vulnerable. The remote and unauthenticated nature of the exploit increases the attack surface, especially for organizations with internet-exposed instances of the affected software. Additionally, the potential for attackers to pivot from compromised inventory systems to other internal resources could amplify the overall impact on organizational security.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Jun 2025, 12:04 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats