CVE-2025-13769

Executive Summary

CVE-2025-13769 is a SQL Injection vulnerability identified in the WebITR application developed by Uniong. This flaw allows an authenticated remote attacker to inject arbitrary SQL commands, potentially leading to unauthorized reading of database contents. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 0.0 (likely unassigned or placeholder), and no patch or public exploit code is currently available. The EPSS score is 0.0%, indicating low exploitation probability at this time, but the risk remains significant due to the potential for data exfiltration.

CVSS Breakdown & Threat Level

• CVSS Score: 0.0 (Unassigned / Placeholder)
• Attack Vector (AV): Network (N) – Exploitable remotely.
• Attack Complexity (AC): Low (L) – Likely simple injection.
• Privileges Required (PR): Low (L) – Requires authentication.
• User Interaction (UI): None (N) – No user action needed.
• Scope (S): Unchanged (U) – Affects only the vulnerable component.
• Confidentiality (C): High (H) – Database contents can be read.
• Integrity (I): None (N) – No modification capability.
• Availability (A): None (N) – No denial of service.

Threat Level: High (Confidentiality impact) – Authenticated attackers can extract sensitive data.

Deep Dive & Mechanics

The vulnerability resides in the WebITR application, likely in a parameter that is not properly sanitized before being used in SQL queries. Since the application requires authentication, the attack surface is limited to authenticated users, but this still poses a significant risk for insider threats or compromised accounts.

Attack Flow:

1. Attacker authenticates to WebITR.
2. Attacker identifies an input field (e.g., search, filter, or ID parameter) that is vulnerable to SQL injection.
3. Attacker injects malicious SQL payloads (e.g., ' OR '1'='1 or UNION SELECT ...) to manipulate the query.
4. The application returns data from the database, allowing the attacker to read arbitrary tables.

Potential Impact:

• Exfiltration of user credentials, personal data, or business-critical information.
• Potential for further exploitation if the database contains application secrets or configuration data.

Vulnerable vs. Patched Code

No patch is currently available. The vulnerable code likely contains unsanitized user input concatenated directly into SQL queries.

Vulnerable Code Example (Hypothetical):

# Vulnerable: Direct concatenation
user_input = request.GET['search']
query = "SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = '" + user_input + "'"
cursor.execute(query)

Patched Code Example (Hypothetical):

# Patched: Parameterized query
user_input = request.GET['search']
query = "SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = %s"
cursor.execute(query, (user_input,))

Exploitation & Lab Setup

Red Team

Lab Setup:

1. Deploy a vulnerable instance of WebITR (if available) or simulate using a custom web app with SQL injection.
2. Use a tool like sqlmap to automate exploitation.

Exploitation Steps:

1. Authenticate to WebITR.
2. Identify injectable parameter (e.g., id in /details?id=1).
3. Test with ' to trigger error.
4. Use sqlmap:

   sqlmap -u "http://target.com/details?id=1" --cookie="session=valid_cookie" --batch --dump
   

5. Extract database contents.

Manual Payload Example:

' UNION SELECT username, password FROM users --

Blue Team

Detection:

• Monitor for SQL error messages in logs (e.g., You have an error in your SQL syntax).
• Look for unusual SQL keywords in HTTP parameters (e.g., UNION, SELECT, OR).
• Use WAF rules to block common SQL injection patterns.

Hunting:

• Search for requests with ' or -- in parameters.
• Correlate with authentication logs to identify suspicious users.

Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)

• Network:
  • HTTP requests containing SQL keywords in parameters (e.g., UNION, SELECT, OR '1'='1).
  • Unusual database error messages in responses.
• Host:
  • Database logs showing unexpected queries.
  • Application logs with SQL errors.
• File:
  • No specific file IOCs.

Detection Engineering

YARA Rule

rule Detect_SQL_Injection_Payloads {
    meta:
        description = "Detects common SQL injection patterns in HTTP requests"
        author = "Valters IT"
        date = "2025-04-10"
    strings:
        $sql1 = "UNION SELECT" nocase
        $sql2 = "OR '1'='1" nocase
        $sql3 = "OR 1=1" nocase
        $sql4 = "DROP TABLE" nocase
        $sql5 = "admin'--" nocase
    condition:
        any of them
}

Sigma Rule

title: SQL Injection Attempt via HTTP Parameters
id: 8c5f3a2e-1b4d-4f7a-9c6e-3d2f1a0b8c7e
status: experimental
description: Detects SQL injection attempts in HTTP request parameters
author: Valters IT
logsource:
    category: webserver
    product: apache
detection:
    selection:
        c-uri|contains:
            - 'UNION'
            - 'SELECT'
            - 'OR 1=1'
            - "OR '1'='1'"
            - '--'
    condition: selection
falsepositives:
    - Legitimate use of SQL keywords in parameters (rare)
level: high

Suricata Rule

alert http any any -> any any (msg:"SQL Injection Attempt - UNION SELECT"; flow:to_server,established; content:"UNION SELECT"; nocase; http_uri; classtype:web-application-attack; sid:1000001; rev:1;)

Remediation & Mitigation

Immediate Actions:

1. Isolate the WebITR application from untrusted networks if possible.
2. Monitor logs for suspicious SQL activity.
3. Apply input validation and parameterized queries if source code is accessible.

Long-term Fix:

• Vendor must release a patch that implements prepared statements or stored procedures.
• Conduct a full security audit of the application.

Workarounds:

• Use a Web Application Firewall (WAF) to block SQL injection patterns.
• Restrict database user permissions to read-only where possible.

Valters IT
Securing Digital Frontiers