CVE-2025-8773VulnerabilityPublished 9 Aug 2025Updated 12 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-8773: Dinstar Monitoring Platform 甘肃省危险品库监控平台 · SQL Injection

Affects Dinstar Monitoring Platform 甘肃省危险品库监控平台Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 51% 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 9 Aug 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 2026-10-26.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Dinstar Monitoring Platform 甘肃省危险品库监控平台	Affected =1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of official patches, European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Conduct an immediate inventory to identify any deployments of the affected Dinstar Monitoring Platform version 1.0 or similar vulnerable systems. 2) Apply web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block SQL Injection attempts targeting the userBean.loginName parameter, especially on the /login_getPasswordErrorNum.action endpoint. 3) Restrict network access to the monitoring platform to trusted internal networks only, employing segmentation to isolate it from broader enterprise networks. 4) Implement strict input validation and sanitization at the application or proxy level if possible, to neutralize malicious SQL payloads. 5) Monitor logs for unusual database query patterns or repeated failed login attempts that could indicate exploitation attempts. 6) Engage with Dinstar or third-party security vendors for potential unofficial patches or workarounds. 7) Prepare incident response plans specific to industrial monitoring platforms to quickly contain and remediate any compromise. 8) Consider deploying database activity monitoring tools to detect anomalous queries in real time. These targeted steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on compensating controls and detection mechanisms in the absence of vendor patches.

Description

A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Dinstar Monitoring Platform 甘肃省危险品库监控平台 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /itc/$%7BappPath%7D/login_getPasswordErrorNum.action. The manipulation of the argument userBean.loginName leads to sql injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the direct impact depends on whether they deploy this specific Dinstar Monitoring Platform or similar systems. If used, exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive monitoring data, potentially compromising safety protocols for hazardous materials storage. This could result in data breaches, operational disruptions, or manipulation of monitoring parameters, increasing the risk of accidents or regulatory non-compliance. Even if the platform itself is not widely used in Europe, the vulnerability highlights the risks associated with unpatched third-party industrial monitoring solutions. Attackers could leverage similar SQL Injection flaws to gain footholds in critical infrastructure environments. Additionally, the lack of vendor response and absence of patches increase the window of exposure. European organizations relying on industrial control systems or monitoring platforms should be vigilant about such vulnerabilities, as they can be targeted by threat actors aiming to disrupt critical services or steal sensitive information.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…