CVE-2025-67261VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jan 2026Updated 21 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-67261: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

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).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable 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.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
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 impacted component.
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 on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 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 2026-10-26.

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

Organizations should immediately assess their exposure to Abacre Retail POS version 14.0.0.396 and restrict network access to the POS system, limiting it to trusted internal networks only. Deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with SQL injection detection and prevention rules can help block exploitation attempts. Since no official patches are currently available, organizations should monitor vendor communications for updates and apply patches promptly once released. Additionally, input validation and sanitization controls should be reviewed and enhanced where possible. Conducting regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on POS systems can identify similar vulnerabilities. Logging and monitoring of POS system activity should be intensified to detect anomalous queries indicative of SQL injection attempts. Segmentation of POS networks from critical backend systems will reduce potential lateral movement in case of compromise.

Description

CVE-2025-67261 is a medium-severity content-based blind SQL injection vulnerability in Abacre Retail Point of Sale (POS) version 14.0.0.396, specifically in the Search function on the Orders page. The vulnerability allows unauthenticated remote attackers to extract limited information from the backend database by manipulating search queries. Exploitation does not require user interaction and can be performed over the network. While no known public exploits exist yet, successful exploitation could lead to partial compromise of data confidentiality and integrity. The vulnerability does not impact availability and requires no privileges. European retailers using this POS software are at risk, especially in countries with significant retail sectors using Abacre POS. Mitigation involves applying vendor patches once available, restricting network access to the POS system, and implementing web application firewalls with SQL injection detection capabilities.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly retailers using Abacre Retail POS 14.0.0.396, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized data disclosure and potential data integrity violations. Attackers could extract sensitive order information, customer details, or manipulate order data, leading to financial loss, reputational damage, and regulatory non-compliance under GDPR. Although availability is not directly impacted, the breach of confidentiality and integrity could disrupt business processes and necessitate costly incident response and remediation efforts. The risk is heightened in environments where POS systems are directly accessible from less secure networks or the internet. European retailers with integrated supply chains and customer databases could face cascading effects if attackers leverage this vulnerability to pivot within their networks.

Summary

CVE-2025-67261 identifies a content-based blind SQL injection vulnerability in Abacre Retail Point of Sale (POS) version 14.0.0.396. The flaw resides in the Search function on the Orders page, where user-supplied input is improperly sanitized before being incorporated into SQL queries. This improper input validation enables an attacker to inject SQL code that does not directly reveal data but allows inference of database content through boolean responses or timing differences, characteristic of blind SQL injection. The vulnerability is remotely exploitable over the network without requiring authentication or user interaction, increasing its risk profile. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 6.5 (medium), reflecting the vulnerability's ability to compromise confidentiality and integrity to a limited extent, but not availability. No patches or known exploits are currently reported, but the presence of this vulnerability in a widely used POS system could attract attackers aiming to extract sensitive order or customer data. The underlying weakness corresponds to CWE-89, a common and well-understood SQL injection category. Given the critical role of POS systems in retail environments, exploitation could lead to data leakage or manipulation of order records, undermining business operations and customer trust.

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 27 Jan 2026, 20:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-89

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats