CVE-2025-9660VulnerabilityPublished 29 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-9660: SourceCodester Bakeshop Online Ordering System · SQL Injection

Affects SourceCodester Bakeshop Online Ordering SystemSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% 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 29 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
SourceCodester Bakeshop Online Ordering System	Affected =1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should include restricting external access to the /passwordrecover.php endpoint via web application firewalls (WAFs) or network access controls to limit exposure. 2. Implement input validation and parameterized queries or prepared statements in the source code to eliminate SQL Injection risks; this requires code review and secure coding practices. 3. If source code modification is not immediately feasible, deploy virtual patching through WAF rules that detect and block suspicious SQL injection patterns targeting the 'phonenumber' parameter. 4. Monitor logs for unusual database query patterns or repeated failed password recovery attempts that may indicate exploitation attempts. 5. Conduct a thorough security audit of the entire application and underlying database to identify and remediate any additional injection points or vulnerabilities. 6. Plan for an upgrade or replacement of the vulnerable system with a secure, actively maintained solution. 7. Educate staff on incident response procedures in case of a suspected breach. 8. Regularly back up databases and ensure backups are stored securely to enable recovery in case of data corruption or loss. 9. Engage with the vendor or community to obtain patches or security updates as they become available.

Description

A vulnerability was found in SourceCodester Bakeshop Online Ordering System 1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /passwordrecover.php. Performing manipulation of the argument phonenumber results in sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

Impact

For European organizations using the SourceCodester Bakeshop Online Ordering System version 1.0, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to customer data privacy and business operations. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized disclosure of personal identifiable information (PII), including customer contact details and order histories, violating GDPR requirements and potentially resulting in heavy fines. Integrity of order data could be compromised, leading to fraudulent orders or financial losses. Availability impact is limited but could occur if attackers manipulate database queries to cause denial of service. The remote and unauthenticated nature of the attack vector means that any exposed instance of the vulnerable system on the internet is at risk. This is particularly concerning for small and medium-sized European bakeries or food service businesses that may lack dedicated cybersecurity resources and rely on this system for online sales. The public availability of exploit code increases the likelihood of automated scanning and exploitation attempts by cybercriminals. Additionally, the potential for lateral movement or further compromise exists if the backend database contains credentials or access to other internal systems. The reputational damage and loss of customer trust resulting from a breach could have long-term negative effects on affected businesses.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Aug 2025, 17:03 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats