CWE-89
AllowedImproper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable
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.
28356 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-FJ3J-C3HF-8GQJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 05:45 – Updated: 2022-05-17 05:45Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in ASPilot Pilot Cart 7.3 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the (1) article parameter to kb.asp, (2) specific parameter to cart.asp, (3) countrycode parameter to contact.asp, and the (4) srch parameter to search.asp. NOTE: the article parameter to pilot.asp is already covered by CVE-2008-2688.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2010-4632"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2010-12-30T21:00:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in ASPilot Pilot Cart 7.3 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the (1) article parameter to kb.asp, (2) specific parameter to cart.asp, (3) countrycode parameter to contact.asp, and the (4) srch parameter to search.asp. NOTE: the article parameter to pilot.asp is already covered by CVE-2008-2688.",
"id": "GHSA-fj3j-c3hf-8gqj",
"modified": "2022-05-17T05:45:02Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T05:45:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2010-4632"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://advisories.ariko-security.com/november/audyt_bezpieczenstwa_745.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://marc.info/?l=full-disclosure\u0026m=128913521908405\u0026w=2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.org/1011-exploits/aspilotpilotcart-sqlxssinject.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/30176"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/15448"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/44698"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-FJ43-9CJJ-QW2V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-08 15:30 – Updated: 2025-09-18 21:30An SQL injection vulnerability exists in the BIG-IP Next Central Manager API (URI). Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-26026"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-200",
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-08T15:15:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An SQL injection vulnerability exists in the BIG-IP Next Central Manager API (URI).\u00a0 Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated",
"id": "GHSA-fj43-9cjj-qw2v",
"modified": "2025-09-18T21:30:55Z",
"published": "2024-05-08T15:30:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-26026"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K000138733"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FJ4R-372V-JVM6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-21 18:30 – Updated: 2023-03-24 21:30IBM Security Guardium Key Lifecycle Manager 3.0, 3.0.1, 4.0, 4.1, and 4.1.1 is vulnerable to SQL injection. A remote attacker could send specially crafted SQL statements, which could allow the attacker to view, add, modify or delete information in the back-end database. IBM X-Force ID: 247597.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-25684"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-21T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "IBM Security Guardium Key Lifecycle Manager 3.0, 3.0.1, 4.0, 4.1, and 4.1.1 is vulnerable to SQL injection. A remote attacker could send specially crafted SQL statements, which could allow the attacker to view, add, modify or delete information in the back-end database. IBM X-Force ID: 247597.",
"id": "GHSA-fj4r-372v-jvm6",
"modified": "2023-03-24T21:30:53Z",
"published": "2023-03-21T18:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-25684"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/247597"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6962729"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FJ58-H2FR-3PP2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-10-12 16:35 – Updated: 2023-01-11 21:59In TypeStack class-validator, validate() input validation can be bypassed because certain internal attributes can be overwritten via a conflicting name. Even though there is an optional forbidUnknownValues parameter that can be used to reduce the risk of this bypass, this option is not documented and thus most developers configure input validation in the vulnerable default manner. With this vulnerability, attackers can launch SQL Injection or XSS attacks by injecting arbitrary malicious input.
The default settings for forbidUnknownValues has been changed to true in 0.14.0.
NOTE: a software maintainer agrees with the "is not documented" finding but suggests that much of the responsibility for the risk lies in a different product.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "class-validator"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.14.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-18413"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79",
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-10-08T23:11:08Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2019-10-24T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In TypeStack class-validator, `validate()` input validation can be bypassed because certain internal attributes can be overwritten via a conflicting name. Even though there is an optional `forbidUnknownValues` parameter that can be used to reduce the risk of this bypass, this option is not documented and thus most developers configure input validation in the vulnerable default manner. With this vulnerability, attackers can launch SQL Injection or XSS attacks by injecting arbitrary malicious input.\n\nThe default settings for `forbidUnknownValues` has been changed to `true` in 0.14.0.\n\nNOTE: a software maintainer agrees with the \"is not documented\" finding but suggests that much of the responsibility for the risk lies in a different product.",
"id": "GHSA-fj58-h2fr-3pp2",
"modified": "2023-01-11T21:59:18Z",
"published": "2021-10-12T16:35:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-18413"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/typestack/class-validator/issues/1422#issuecomment-1344635415"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/typestack/class-validator/issues/438"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/typestack/class-validator/issues/438#issuecomment-964728471"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/typestack/class-validator/pull/1798"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/typestack/class-validator"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/typestack/class-validator#passing-options"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SQL Injection and Cross-site Scripting in class-validator"
}
GHSA-FJ69-CG4Q-MWV9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:40 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:40SQL Injection exists in the JomEstate PRO through 3.7 component for Joomla! via the id parameter in a task=detailed action.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-6368"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-02-17T07:29:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "SQL Injection exists in the JomEstate PRO through 3.7 component for Joomla! via the id parameter in a task=detailed action.",
"id": "GHSA-fj69-cg4q-mwv9",
"modified": "2022-05-14T03:40:36Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:40:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-6368"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exploit-db.com/exploits/44117"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FJ6Q-C6X7-Q7W3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-11 12:31 – Updated: 2025-09-12 18:31SQL Injection in Online Fire Reporting System v1.2 by PHPGurukul. This vulnerability allows an attacker to retrieve, create, update and delete database via 'teamid' parameter in the endpoint '/ofrs/admin/edit-team.php'.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-40690"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-11T12:15:35Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "SQL Injection in Online Fire Reporting System v1.2 by PHPGurukul. This vulnerability allows an attacker to retrieve, create, update and delete database via\u00a0\u0027teamid\u0027 parameter in the endpoint \u0027/ofrs/admin/edit-team.php\u0027.",
"id": "GHSA-fj6q-c6x7-q7w3",
"modified": "2025-09-12T18:31:09Z",
"published": "2025-09-11T12:31:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-40690"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.incibe.es/en/incibe-cert/notices/aviso/multiple-vulnerabilities-phpgurukuls-online-fire-reporting-system"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-FJ6W-RQ8Q-JHH3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:09 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:09A SQL injection vulnerability in image generation in Centreon before 20.04.14, 20.10.8, and 21.04.2 allows remote authenticated (but low-privileged) attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the include/views/graphs/generateGraphs/generateImage.php index parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-37557"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-08-03T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A SQL injection vulnerability in image generation in Centreon before 20.04.14, 20.10.8, and 21.04.2 allows remote authenticated (but low-privileged) attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the include/views/graphs/generateGraphs/generateImage.php index parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-fj6w-rq8q-jhh3",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:09:50Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:09:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-37557"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/centreon/centreon/pull/9787"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.synacktiv.com/sites/default/files/2021-07/Centreon_Multiple_vulnerabilities_0.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-FJ74-QXJ7-R3VC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-26 18:12 – Updated: 2026-03-27 21:40Summary
In objects/like.php, the getLike() method constructs a SQL query using a prepared statement placeholder (?) for users_id but directly concatenates $this->videos_id into the query string without parameterization. An attacker who can control the videos_id value (via a crafted request) can inject arbitrary SQL, bypassing the partial prepared-statement protection.
Details
File: objects/like.php
Vulnerable code:
$sql = "SELECT * FROM likes WHERE users_id = ? AND videos_id = ".$this->videos_id." LIMIT 1;";
$res = sqlDAL::readSql($sql, "i", [$this->users_id]);
The query mixes a parameterized placeholder for users_id with raw string concatenation for videos_id. The $this->videos_id value originates from user-supplied request input (typically a POST/GET parameter identifying the video being liked/disliked) and is not cast to integer or validated before being embedded in the SQL string.
All other queries in the same file correctly use ? placeholders for both columns:
// Correct pattern used elsewhere:
$sql = "SELECT count(*) as total FROM likes WHERE videos_id = ? AND like = 1";
The inconsistency means any attacker who can submit a like/dislike action with a crafted videos_id can inject SQL. Since like/dislike actions are typically available to any authenticated user, the attack surface is broad.
PoC
An attacker sends a like request with an injected videos_id:
POST /objects/likeAjax.json.php
videos_id=1 UNION SELECT user,password,3,4,5,6,7,8 FROM users-- -
This causes the backend to execute:
SELECT * FROM likes WHERE users_id = 1 AND videos_id = 1 UNION SELECT user,password,3,4,5,6,7,8 FROM users-- - LIMIT 1;
Result: full database read — user credentials, emails, private content, and any other data accessible to the MySQL user.
Impact
- Severity: High
- Authentication required: Yes (must be logged in to like a video), but all registered users qualify
- Impact: Full database read via UNION-based injection; potential for data modification or deletion depending on DB user privileges
- Fix: Replace the concatenation with a second
?placeholder and pass$this->videos_idas a bound integer parameter
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "wwbn/avideo"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "26.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33767"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-26T18:12:33Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-27T17:16:29Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nIn `objects/like.php`, the `getLike()` method constructs a SQL query using a prepared statement placeholder (`?`) for `users_id` but directly concatenates `$this-\u003evideos_id` into the query string without parameterization. An attacker who can control the `videos_id` value (via a crafted request) can inject arbitrary SQL, bypassing the partial prepared-statement protection.\n\n### Details\n\n**File:** `objects/like.php`\n\n**Vulnerable code:**\n```php\n$sql = \"SELECT * FROM likes WHERE users_id = ? AND videos_id = \".$this-\u003evideos_id.\" LIMIT 1;\";\n$res = sqlDAL::readSql($sql, \"i\", [$this-\u003eusers_id]);\n```\n\nThe query mixes a parameterized placeholder for `users_id` with raw string concatenation for `videos_id`. The `$this-\u003evideos_id` value originates from user-supplied request input (typically a POST/GET parameter identifying the video being liked/disliked) and is not cast to integer or validated before being embedded in the SQL string.\n\nAll other queries in the same file correctly use `?` placeholders for both columns:\n```php\n// Correct pattern used elsewhere:\n$sql = \"SELECT count(*) as total FROM likes WHERE videos_id = ? AND like = 1\";\n```\n\nThe inconsistency means any attacker who can submit a like/dislike action with a crafted `videos_id` can inject SQL. Since like/dislike actions are typically available to any authenticated user, the attack surface is broad.\n\n### PoC\n\nAn attacker sends a like request with an injected `videos_id`:\n```\nPOST /objects/likeAjax.json.php\nvideos_id=1 UNION SELECT user,password,3,4,5,6,7,8 FROM users-- -\n```\n\nThis causes the backend to execute:\n```sql\nSELECT * FROM likes WHERE users_id = 1 AND videos_id = 1 UNION SELECT user,password,3,4,5,6,7,8 FROM users-- - LIMIT 1;\n```\n\nResult: full database read \u2014 user credentials, emails, private content, and any other data accessible to the MySQL user.\n\n### Impact\n\n- **Severity:** High\n- **Authentication required:** Yes (must be logged in to like a video), but all registered users qualify\n- **Impact:** Full database read via UNION-based injection; potential for data modification or deletion depending on DB user privileges\n- **Fix:** Replace the concatenation with a second `?` placeholder and pass `$this-\u003evideos_id` as a bound integer parameter",
"id": "GHSA-fj74-qxj7-r3vc",
"modified": "2026-03-27T21:40:35Z",
"published": "2026-03-26T18:12:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo/security/advisories/GHSA-fj74-qxj7-r3vc"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33767"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo/commit/0215d3c4f1ee748b8880254967b51784b8ac4080"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "AVideo has SQL Injection via Partial Prepared Statement \u2014 videos_id Concatenated Directly into Query"
}
GHSA-FJ7F-RGCF-77QM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:43 – Updated: 2025-04-20 03:47An authentication bypass exists in the E-Sic 1.0 /index (aka login) URI via '=''or' values for the username and password.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-15379"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-10-23T08:29:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An authentication bypass exists in the E-Sic 1.0 /index (aka login) URI via \u0027=\u0027\u0027or\u0027 values for the username and password.",
"id": "GHSA-fj7f-rgcf-77qm",
"modified": "2025-04-20T03:47:31Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:43:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-15379"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/42980"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://whiteboyz.xyz/esic-software-publico-autentication-bypass.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FJ7H-2GQR-2CPP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-23 00:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 07:48SQL injection vulnerability in janobe Online Job Portal v.2020 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the login.php component.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-43468"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-89"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-23T00:15:20Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "SQL injection vulnerability in janobe Online Job Portal v.2020 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the login.php component.",
"id": "GHSA-fj7h-2gqr-2cpp",
"modified": "2024-04-04T07:48:41Z",
"published": "2023-09-23T00:30:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-43468"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/ae6e361b/30d56c116d9f727b91c418d044f42fd3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ae6e361b/Online-Job-Portal"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sourcecodester.com/php/14518/online-job-portal-php-full-source-code-2020.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: 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 [REF-1482].
- For example, consider using persistence layers such as Hibernate or Enterprise Java Beans, which can provide significant protection against SQL injection if used properly.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: 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.
- Process SQL queries using prepared statements, parameterized queries, or stored procedures. These features should accept parameters or variables and support strong typing. Do not dynamically construct and execute query strings within these features using "exec" or similar functionality, since this may re-introduce the possibility of SQL injection. [REF-867]
Mitigation MIT-17
Strategy: Environment Hardening
- Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. 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. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
- Specifically, follow the principle of least privilege when creating user accounts to a SQL database. The database users should only have the minimum privileges necessary to use their account. If the requirements of the system indicate that a user can read and modify their own data, then limit their privileges so they cannot read/write others' data. Use the strictest permissions possible on all database objects, such as execute-only for stored procedures.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-28
Strategy: Output Encoding
- While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
- Instead of building a new implementation, such features may be available in the database or programming language. For example, the Oracle DBMS_ASSERT package can check or enforce that parameters have certain properties that make them less vulnerable to SQL injection. For MySQL, the mysql_real_escape_string() API function is available in both C and PHP.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: 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.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When constructing SQL query strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing SQL injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent SQL injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, the name "O'Reilly" would likely pass the validation step, since it is a common last name in the English language. However, it cannot be directly inserted into the database because it contains the "'" apostrophe character, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the apostrophe might reduce the risk of SQL injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the wrong name would be recorded.
- When feasible, it may be safest to disallow meta-characters entirely, instead of escaping them. This will provide some defense in depth. After the data is entered into the database, later processes may neglect to escape meta-characters before use, and you may not have control over those processes.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-39
- Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
- If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
- Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
- In the context of SQL Injection, error messages revealing the structure of a SQL query can help attackers tailor successful attack strings.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481.
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-108: Command Line Execution through SQL Injection
An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
CAPEC-109: Object Relational Mapping Injection
An attacker leverages a weakness present in the database access layer code generated with an Object Relational Mapping (ORM) tool or a weakness in the way that a developer used a persistence framework to inject their own SQL commands to be executed against the underlying database. The attack here is similar to plain SQL injection, except that the application does not use JDBC to directly talk to the database, but instead it uses a data access layer generated by an ORM tool or framework (e.g. Hibernate). While most of the time code generated by an ORM tool contains safe access methods that are immune to SQL injection, sometimes either due to some weakness in the generated code or due to the fact that the developer failed to use the generated access methods properly, SQL injection is still possible.
CAPEC-110: SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering
An attacker modifies the parameters of the SOAP message that is sent from the service consumer to the service provider to initiate a SQL injection attack. On the service provider side, the SOAP message is parsed and parameters are not properly validated before being used to access a database in a way that does not use parameter binding, thus enabling the attacker to control the structure of the executed SQL query. This pattern describes a SQL injection attack with the delivery mechanism being a SOAP message.
CAPEC-470: Expanding Control over the Operating System from the Database
An attacker is able to leverage access gained to the database to read / write data to the file system, compromise the operating system, create a tunnel for accessing the host machine, and use this access to potentially attack other machines on the same network as the database machine. Traditionally SQL injections attacks are viewed as a way to gain unauthorized read access to the data stored in the database, modify the data in the database, delete the data, etc. However, almost every data base management system (DBMS) system includes facilities that if compromised allow an attacker complete access to the file system, operating system, and full access to the host running the database. The attacker can then use this privileged access to launch subsequent attacks. These facilities include dropping into a command shell, creating user defined functions that can call system level libraries present on the host machine, stored procedures, etc.
CAPEC-66: SQL Injection
This attack exploits target software that constructs SQL statements based on user input. An attacker crafts input strings so that when the target software constructs SQL statements based on the input, the resulting SQL statement performs actions other than those the application intended. SQL Injection results from failure of the application to appropriately validate input.
CAPEC-7: Blind SQL Injection
Blind SQL Injection results from an insufficient mitigation for SQL Injection. Although suppressing database error messages are considered best practice, the suppression alone is not sufficient to prevent SQL Injection. Blind SQL Injection is a form of SQL Injection that overcomes the lack of error messages. Without the error messages that facilitate SQL Injection, the adversary constructs input strings that probe the target through simple Boolean SQL expressions. The adversary can determine if the syntax and structure of the injection was successful based on whether the query was executed or not. Applied iteratively, the adversary determines how and where the target is vulnerable to SQL Injection.