VulnerabilityPublished 1 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-30573: Input · Improper Validation of Specified Quantity

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 Apr 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 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-30573, organizations should implement strict server-side validation and sanitization of all input parameters related to sales transactions, specifically 'txtprice' and 'txttotalcost'. Input validation must enforce that these values are non-negative and conform to expected numeric formats before processing. Reviewing and updating the business logic to handle edge cases and prevent manipulation of financial data is critical. Conduct thorough code audits to identify similar logic flaws in other parts of the application. Employ application-layer firewalls or input filtering mechanisms to detect and block anomalous requests with negative values. Maintain comprehensive logging and monitoring of sales transactions to detect suspicious activities. If possible, restrict access to the add-sales.php endpoint to authorized users and networks. Finally, coordinate with the software vendor or community to obtain patches or updates addressing this vulnerability once available.

Description

A Business Logic vulnerability exists in SourceCodester Pharmacy Product Management System 1.0. The vulnerability is located in the add-sales.php file. The application fails to validate the "txtprice" and "txttotalcost" parameters, allowing attackers to submit negative values for sales transactions. This leads to incorrect financial calculations, corruption of sales reports, and potential financial loss.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-30573 is on the integrity of financial data within the affected pharmacy management system. By submitting negative values for sales prices and total costs, attackers can corrupt sales reports and financial calculations, potentially causing significant financial losses or misrepresentation of revenue. This can lead to erroneous business decisions, regulatory compliance issues, and damage to organizational reputation. Since the vulnerability can be exploited remotely without authentication or user interaction, attackers can conduct these manipulations stealthily. Organizations relying on accurate sales data for inventory management, accounting, and auditing are particularly vulnerable. While confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the loss of data integrity can have cascading effects on operational trust and financial health. The lack of current known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not diminish the potential severity if exploited.

CWE-1284Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/meifukun/Web-Security-PoCs/blob/main/Pharmacy-Product-Management-System/Logic-AddSales-NegativePrice.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Apr 2026, 18:23 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats