CVE-2025-6738VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-6738: huija bicycleSharingServer · SQL Injection

Affects huija bicycleSharingServerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 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 27 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-6738, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Conduct immediate code review and refactoring of the userDao.selectUserByUserNameLike function to ensure proper parameterized queries or prepared statements are used, eliminating direct concatenation of user input into SQL commands. 2) Employ input validation and sanitization techniques on the 'Username' parameter to restrict input to expected formats and characters. 3) Monitor and audit database query logs for unusual or suspicious SQL patterns indicative of injection attempts. 4) Implement Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules targeting SQL Injection patterns specific to the bicycleSharingServer endpoints. 5) Engage with the huija vendor or community to obtain updates or patches, given the rolling release model, and establish a process for continuous integration of security fixes. 6) Restrict database user privileges to the minimum necessary to limit the impact of any successful injection. 7) Conduct penetration testing focusing on SQL Injection vectors to validate the effectiveness of mitigations. 8) Educate development teams on secure coding practices to prevent recurrence of similar vulnerabilities.

Description

A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in huija bicycleSharingServer up to 7b8a3ba48ad618604abd4797d2e7cf3b5ac7625a. Affected by this issue is the function userDao.selectUserByUserNameLike of the file UserServiceImpl.java. The manipulation of the argument Username leads to sql injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This product is using a rolling release to provide continious delivery. Therefore, no version details for affected nor updated releases are available.

Impact

For European organizations deploying the huija bicycleSharingServer, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized access to user data, including personal information of bicycle-sharing service users. Exploitation could lead to data breaches, loss of customer trust, and regulatory non-compliance, particularly under GDPR requirements for protecting personal data. The ability to remotely exploit the vulnerability without authentication increases the risk profile, especially for public-facing services. However, the medium severity and low impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability suggest that while data exposure is possible, the scope might be limited. Still, attackers could leverage this flaw as an initial foothold for further attacks or lateral movement within the network. Disruption of service or data manipulation could also affect operational continuity of bicycle-sharing services, impacting urban mobility solutions. The rolling release nature of the product may delay patch deployment, increasing exposure time. Overall, European organizations should consider this vulnerability a moderate threat that requires timely mitigation to prevent potential data breaches and service disruptions.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Jun 2025, 00:50 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats