VulnerabilityPublished 3 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-9926: projectworlds Travel Management System · SQL Injection

Affects projectworlds Travel Management SystemSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% 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 3 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
projectworlds Travel Management System	Affected =1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement the following specific mitigation strategies: 1) Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block SQL Injection patterns targeting the 't1' parameter in /viewsubcategory.php requests. 2) Conduct thorough input validation and sanitization on all user-supplied inputs, especially the 't1' parameter, using parameterized queries or prepared statements if possible within the application code. 3) Restrict external access to the Travel Management System by implementing network segmentation and access controls, limiting exposure to trusted IP addresses or VPN-only access. 4) Monitor application logs and network traffic for anomalous SQL queries or unusual access patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 5) Engage with the vendor (projectworlds) to obtain updates or patches and plan for prompt application once available. 6) Consider deploying database activity monitoring tools to detect and alert on suspicious query executions. 7) As a temporary measure, disable or restrict the vulnerable functionality if feasible without disrupting critical operations. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific vulnerable parameter and application context.

Description

A vulnerability was determined in projectworlds Travel Management System 1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /viewsubcategory.php. This manipulation of the argument t1 causes sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

Impact

For European organizations using the projectworlds Travel Management System 1.0, this vulnerability poses a tangible risk of unauthorized data access and manipulation. Travel management systems typically handle sensitive customer data, including personal identification, travel itineraries, payment details, and corporate travel policies. Exploitation could lead to exposure of personally identifiable information (PII), financial data, and internal business information, potentially resulting in regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR violations), reputational damage, and financial losses. The remote and unauthenticated nature of the attack increases the threat surface, especially for organizations with externally accessible instances of the affected software. Additionally, attackers could leverage the vulnerability as a foothold for further network intrusion or lateral movement. While the vulnerability's impact is rated medium, the criticality of the data handled by travel management systems elevates the potential consequences. European organizations in sectors such as travel agencies, corporate travel departments, and hospitality services are particularly at risk. The lack of a patch or mitigation details at this time necessitates immediate attention to reduce exposure.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Sep 2025, 20:33 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats