CVE-2026-25513VulnerabilityPublished 4 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-25513: NeoRazorX facturascripts · SQL Injection

Affects NeoRazorX facturascriptsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.3 High : upgrade to 2025.81 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.3High

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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2025.81

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: High
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: 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: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
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 4 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 2026-10-26.

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

Upgrade facturascripts and neorazorx/facturascripts to 2025.81.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
NeoRazorXfacturascripts	Affected <2025.81	Fixed in 2025.81
GitHubneorazorx/facturascripts`pkg:github/neorazorx/facturascripts`Other threats	Affected <2025.81	Fixed in 2025.81

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade FacturaScripts installations to version 2025.81 or later, which contains the patch for this SQL injection vulnerability. Until upgrades are applied, organizations should restrict API access to trusted users and networks, enforce strong authentication and credential management to prevent unauthorized access, and monitor API logs for unusual sorting parameter usage indicative of exploitation attempts. Implementing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block SQL injection patterns in API requests can provide additional protection. Conduct thorough code reviews and penetration testing focusing on API endpoints that accept sorting parameters to identify any residual injection risks. Educate developers and administrators on secure coding practices, especially regarding input validation and sanitization. Regularly audit user privileges to minimize the number of authenticated users who can access the API. Finally, maintain up-to-date backups of critical data to enable recovery in case of data corruption or loss.

Description

CVE-2026-25513 is a high-severity SQL injection vulnerability in FacturaScripts ERP and accounting software versions prior to 2025.81. It affects the REST API's sorting functionality, where user input in the sort parameter is unsafely concatenated into SQL ORDER BY clauses without validation. Authenticated API users can exploit this flaw to execute arbitrary SQL commands, potentially compromising data confidentiality and integrity. The vulnerability has been patched in version 2025.81. No known exploits are reported in the wild yet. European organizations using affected versions of FacturaScripts should prioritize updating to mitigate risks. The vulnerability requires authentication but no user interaction, and it impacts all API endpoints supporting sorting. This threat is particularly relevant to countries with significant SME adoption of FacturaScripts and those with critical accounting and ERP infrastructure relying on this software.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive financial and operational data managed within FacturaScripts. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized data disclosure, data tampering, or denial of service by corrupting database queries. Given FacturaScripts' usage among small and medium enterprises (SMEs) across Europe for accounting and ERP functions, a successful attack could disrupt business operations, cause regulatory compliance issues (e.g., GDPR violations due to data breaches), and result in financial losses. The requirement for authentication reduces the risk from external attackers but increases the threat from insider attacks or compromised credentials. Organizations relying on FacturaScripts for critical business processes may face operational downtime and reputational damage if exploited. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the urgency for patching, as attackers may develop exploits rapidly once the vulnerability is public.

Summary

FacturaScripts, an open-source ERP and accounting platform developed by NeoRazorX, contains a critical SQL injection vulnerability identified as CVE-2026-25513. The flaw resides in the ModelClass::getOrderBy() method, which processes the 'sort' parameter in API requests. Prior to version 2025.81, this parameter is directly concatenated into the SQL ORDER BY clause without proper validation or sanitization, violating secure coding practices and CWE-89 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command). This allows authenticated API users to inject arbitrary SQL code, potentially leading to unauthorized data access, data modification, or disruption of database operations. The vulnerability affects all API endpoints that support sorting, broadening the attack surface. The CVSS 4.0 base score is 8.3 (high), reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, no user interaction, and high impact on confidentiality. The vulnerability does not require user interaction but does require authentication, limiting exposure to authorized users or compromised credentials. No public exploits have been reported yet, but the critical nature and ease of exploitation warrant immediate attention. The issue has been addressed in FacturaScripts version 2025.81, which implements proper input validation and sanitization to prevent SQL injection.

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).
CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-1286Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
NoSQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-943Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The product generates a query intended to access or manipulate data in a data store such as a database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that can modify the intended logic of the query.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
NoSQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Feb 2026, 07:43 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-89, CWE-20, CWE-1286 +1

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats