CVE-2025-6766VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-6766: sfturing hosp_order · SQL Injection

Affects sfturing hosp_orderSource 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: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% 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

Organizations should immediately audit their use of the hosp_order system to identify if they are running affected versions or commits. Since no official patches or versioned updates are available due to the rolling release model, mitigation should focus on implementing input validation and parameterized queries or prepared statements around the getOfficeName function to prevent SQL injection. Web application firewalls (WAFs) can be configured with custom rules to detect and block malicious SQL payloads targeting the officesName parameter. Network segmentation and restricting external access to the hosp_order application can reduce exposure. Monitoring and logging database query anomalies and application errors related to this function can help detect exploitation attempts early. Organizations should engage with the vendor or community maintaining hosp_order to obtain timely updates or patches and consider code review or temporary code fixes if feasible. Regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on injection flaws are recommended to ensure no other similar vulnerabilities exist.

Description

A vulnerability was found in sfturing hosp_order up to 627f426331da8086ce8fff2017d65b1ddef384f8. It has been declared as critical. This vulnerability affects the function getOfficeName of the file OfficeServiceImpl.java. The manipulation of the argument officesName leads to sql injection. The attack can be initiated 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, particularly those in healthcare or related sectors using the sfturing hosp_order system, this vulnerability poses significant risks. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive patient or operational data, violating GDPR and other data protection regulations, potentially resulting in legal penalties and reputational damage. Data integrity could be compromised, affecting clinical decisions or operational workflows. Availability impacts could disrupt hospital order processing, leading to delays in patient care or administrative functions. The remote and unauthenticated nature of the attack vector increases the threat surface, especially for organizations with externally accessible interfaces. Given the rolling release model and lack of clear patch versions, organizations may face challenges in timely remediation, increasing exposure duration. Additionally, the public disclosure of the exploit details raises the likelihood of opportunistic attacks targeting European healthcare providers, which are often high-value targets due to the critical nature of their services and sensitive data handled.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Jun 2025, 13:01 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats