CVE-2026-25239VulnerabilityPublished 3 Feb 2026Updated 4 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-25239: pear pearweb · SQL Injection

Affects pear pearwebSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High : upgrade to 1.33.0 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.33.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Feb 2026
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

Upgrade pear pearweb to 1.33.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
pearpearweb	Affected <1.33.0	Fixed in 1.33.0

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade pearweb to version 1.33.0 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Organizations should audit their PHP environments to identify any instances of pearweb and verify the version in use. Additionally, review and sanitize all inputs related to API documentation queues or filename parameters to ensure no unsanitized data reaches SQL queries. Implementing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block SQL injection attempts targeting pearweb endpoints can provide temporary protection. Conduct code reviews and penetration testing focused on SQL injection vectors within PEAR components. Monitor logs for suspicious database query patterns or unexpected errors related to apidoc queue operations. Finally, establish a rapid patch management process to address future vulnerabilities in third-party PHP components promptly.

Description

CVE-2026-25239 is a high-severity SQL injection vulnerability in the PEAR pearweb component prior to version 1.33.0. It arises from improper neutralization of special elements in SQL commands during the insertion of filenames into an API documentation queue. An unauthenticated attacker can manipulate the filename parameter to execute arbitrary SQL queries, potentially compromising data integrity and confidentiality. The vulnerability has been patched in version 1.33.0. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. European organizations using pearweb versions before 1.

Impact

For European organizations, exploitation of this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data, data corruption, or complete compromise of the backend database used by pearweb. This could affect internal development environments, software distribution systems, or any web applications relying on PEAR components. The breach of confidentiality and integrity could result in intellectual property theft, disruption of software supply chains, and damage to organizational reputation. Given the widespread use of PHP and PEAR in European web development, especially in sectors like finance, government, and technology, the impact could be significant. Furthermore, the vulnerability's ease of exploitation without authentication increases the risk of automated attacks targeting vulnerable systems. Organizations that have not patched pearweb may face compliance issues under GDPR if personal data is exposed or manipulated.

Summary

CVE-2026-25239 is a SQL injection vulnerability classified under CWE-89 affecting the pearweb product of the PEAR PHP framework and distribution system. The vulnerability exists in the apidoc queue insertion functionality, where the filename value inserted into the database is not properly sanitized or neutralized. This allows an attacker who can influence the filename parameter to inject malicious SQL commands, leading to unauthorized query manipulation. The vulnerability does not require authentication or user interaction, making it remotely exploitable over the network with low attack complexity. The impact primarily affects data integrity and confidentiality, as attackers could alter or exfiltrate sensitive data stored in the backend database. The vulnerability was patched in pearweb version 1.33.0, and users running earlier versions should upgrade immediately. Although no known exploits are reported in the wild, the high CVSS score of 8.2 reflects the critical nature of the flaw and the potential for severe damage if exploited. The vulnerability is particularly relevant for organizations that use PEAR components in their PHP environments, especially those that rely on pearweb for managing reusable PHP components and API documentation.

CWE-89Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #2OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Query Parameterization (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Expanding Control over the Operating System from the Database (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/pear/pearweb/security/advisories/GHSA-f9mg-x463-3vxg (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Feb 2026, 11:41 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-89

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats