CVE-2025-64092

Executive Summary

CVE-2025-64092 is an unauthenticated SQL injection vulnerability in an unidentified web application or service. The flaw allows a remote attacker to inject arbitrary SQL statements into GET request parameters, directly querying the underlying database without any authentication. With a CVSS score of 7.5, the vulnerability is rated High severity due to the ease of exploitation (network-based, low complexity, no privileges required) and the full confidentiality impact. At this time, no public exploit code or PoC has been confirmed, and the affected vendor or product has not been officially disclosed, limiting the ability to scope the exact attack surface.

Technical Analysis

Vulnerability Mechanism

The vulnerability is classified as a classic SQL injection (SQLi) flaw manifesting through HTTP GET parameters. The vector description — "inject an SQL request into GET request parameters" — indicates that the application constructs dynamic SQL queries by concatenating user-controlled input from the query string without proper sanitization or parameterized statements.

The attack surface is any HTTP endpoint that accepts user input via GET parameters and uses that data directly in a database query. Typical locations include:

• Search functionality (?search=...)
• Filter or sort parameters (?sort=...&filter=...)
• ID-based lookups (?id=..., ?user_id=...)
• Pagination parameters (?page=...&offset=...)

Code-Level Explanation

The vulnerable pattern is analogous to:

// Vulnerable pattern
$id = $_GET['id'];
$query = "SELECT * FROM products WHERE id = " . $id;
$result = mysqli_query($conn, $query);

When an attacker supplies id=1 UNION SELECT username, password FROM users, the final query becomes:

SELECT * FROM products WHERE id = 1 UNION SELECT username, password FROM users

The UNION operator allows the attacker to append arbitrary SELECT statements, retrieving data from other tables. Other vectors include:

• Boolean-based blind SQLi: ?id=1 AND (SELECT 1 FROM users LIMIT 1) = 1
• Time-based blind SQLi: ?id=1; WAITFOR DELAY '0:0:5'--
• Stacked queries (if the DBMS supports it): ?id=1; DROP TABLE users--

Attack Complexity

The CVSS vector AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N indicates:

• Attack Vector: Network — remotely exploitable
• Attack Complexity: Low — no special conditions required
• Privileges Required: None — unauthenticated
• User Interaction: None — fully automated attacks possible
• Scope: Unchanged
• Confidentiality Impact: High — direct database read access
• Integrity Impact: None (per the vector)
• Availability Impact: None

The confidentiality-centric impact suggests the primary goal is data exfiltration, not data manipulation or denial of service.

Exploitation Scenarios

This section outlines a concrete attack chain for exploiting CVE-2025-64092. Although no public PoC exists, the vulnerability class (unauthenticated SQL injection in GET parameters) enables the following methodology.

Step 1 — Reconnaissance and Target Identification

The attacker begins by identifying internet-facing web applications that pass GET parameters into database queries. Use Shodan or Censys to find candidate targets:

• Search for web servers responding with error pages containing SQL syntax errors
• Identify applications with obvious parameter-based features (search, sort, filter)
• Fingerprint the technology stack (e.g., X-Powered-By: PHP, Server: nginx/1.24, or standard Apache headers)

Shodan dorks:

http.title:"error" "sql" "get" "param"
http.html:"sql injection" "GET"

Step 2 — Vulnerability Confirmation

The attacker performs non-destructive testing to confirm SQL injection without crashing the database:

GET /product?id=1' HTTP/1.1
Host: target.example.com

Expected responses indicating a SQLi vulnerability:

• Error-based: The database error message references a syntax error near the injected quote
• Behavioral: The page returns different content when ?id=1 AND 1=1 versus ?id=1 AND 1=2
• Timing-based: ?id=1 AND SLEEP(5) introduces a measurable latency

Step 3 — Database Fingerprinting

Once confirmed, the attacker determines the DBMS type to craft payloads:

• MySQL: ?id=1 AND version() LIKE '%mysql%'
• PostgreSQL: ?id=1 AND current_database() IS NOT NULL
• MSSQL: ?id=1; SELECT @@version--
• Oracle: ?id=1 AND banner IS NOT NULL

Step 4 — Data Exfiltration

Using UNION-based injection, the attacker enumerates table and column names:

GET /product?id=1 UNION SELECT table_name,2,3 FROM information_schema.tables--

After identifying sensitive tables (e.g., users, credentials, payment), extract the contents:

GET /product?id=1 UNION SELECT username,password,3 FROM users--

If the output is not directly displayed (blind SQLi), use boolean or time-based inference:

GET /product?id=1 AND ASCII(SUBSTRING((SELECT password FROM users LIMIT 1),1,1)) = 97

Step 5 — Post-Exploitation Impact

• Credential theft: Extract hashed passwords; crack offline with hashcat
• Persistence: If the application uses a database-backed session store, inject a session token for admin access
• Lateral movement: Reuse extracted credentials across corporate systems
• Data exposure: Exfiltrate personally identifiable information (PII), financial records, or intellectual property for resale or ransomware extortion

Impact Assessment

Business Impact

The vulnerability enables complete unauthorized read access to the application database. For an enterprise, this can expose:

• Customer PII (names, addresses, payment details)
• Employee credentials and directory information
• Proprietary business data (contracts, plans, source code stored in DB)
• API keys and internal system credentials

Given the CVSS score of 7.5 (High), the severity is significant but not critical — the primary damage is confidentiality loss. Organizations handling regulated data (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS) face legal and compliance consequences, including fines and mandatory breach notifications.

Affected Systems

The exact product is unknown, making system identification difficult. The flaw likely affects a custom in-house web application or a niche commercial product that has not been widely disclosed. Affected systems include any public-facing web server with database connectivity.

Blast Radius

• Direct: Database containing all application data
• Indirect: Credentials re-used across network infrastructure; downstream compromise of cloud services, email systems, or VPN endpoints

Detection Guidance

The following detection rules target the exploitation pattern: anomalous GET requests containing SQL metacharacters, suspicious SQL keywords in query strings, and database error responses triggered by parameter tampering.

Sigma Rule

title: CVE-2025-64092 - SQL Injection in GET Parameters
id: 9c4c6e0f-1a5d-4c7e-8d2f-3b1a6c9d4e7a
status: experimental
description: Detects SQL injection attempts in HTTP GET request parameters targeting the flaw described in CVE-2025-64092.
author: Valtersit Threat Intel Team
logsource:
  category: webserver
  product: apache
  service: accesslog
detection:
  selection_sql_keywords:
    cs-method: GET
    cs-uri-query|contains:
      - 'UNION'
      - 'SELECT'
      - 'SLEEP('
      - 'AND 1=1'
      - 'OR 1=1'
      - "'"
      - ';--'
      - 'WAITFOR'
      - 'pg_sleep'
      - 'information_schema'
  selection_special_chars:
    cs-uri-query|contains:
      - '%27'   # URL-encoded single quote
      - '%2527' # Double-encoded single quote
      - '%3B'   # URL-encoded semicolon
  condition: selection_sql_keywords and selection_special_chars
  timeframe: 5m
falsepositives:
  - Legitimate search queries containing apostrophes (rare)
  - Penetration testing activities
level: high
fields:
  - src_ip
  - cs-uri-query
  - cs-host
  - sc-status

YARA Rule

rule CVE_2025_64092_SQLi_GET_Attempt
{
    meta:
        author = "Valtersit Threat Intel"
        description = "Detects SQL injection patterns in HTTP GET requests targeting CVE-2025-64092"
        reference = "CVE-2025-64092"
        date = "2025-01-15"
        severity = "high"
    strings:
        $sql_union = "UNION" nocase
        $sql_select = "SELECT" nocase
        $sql_sleep = "SLEEP(" nocase
        $sql_comment1 = "--"
        $sql_comment2 = "/*"
        $sql_quote = "'"
        $sql_encoded_quote = "%27"
        $sql_encoded_semicolon = "%3B"
        $sql_info_schema = "information_schema" nocase
        $sql_waitfor = "WAITFOR" nocase
        $sql_pg_sleep = "pg_sleep" nocase
        $url_param_marker = "?"
        $url_amp = "&"
    condition:
        uint16(0) == 0x3C21 and // Avoid matching HTTP responses; focus on URIs
        any of them and
        2 of ($sql_*)
}

Suricata IDS Rule

alert http any any -> any any (msg:"CVE-2025-64092 - SQL Injection in GET Parameter"; flow:established,to_server; http.method; content:"GET"; http.uri; content:"%27"; http.uri; content:"UNION"; nocase; http.uri; content:"SELECT"; nocase; http.uri; content:"--"; pcre:"/(%27|')(UNION|SELECT|AND|OR)[\s\S]{0,200}(--|%23|#|;)/i"; classtype:attempted-admin; sid:10064092; rev:1; reference:cve,2025-64092; priority:1;)

Elastic Detection

// EQL query for Elastic Security
sequence by source.ip with maxspan=5m
  [ network where event.category == "network" and dns.question.name like "*" ]  // Optional: enrich with DNS
  [ http where http.request.method == "GET" and
    ( // Direct SQL keywords
      wildcard(http.request.uri, "*UNION*SELECT*") or
      wildcard(http.request.uri, "*AND*1=1*") or
      wildcard(http.request.uri, "*OR*1=1*") or
      wildcard(http.request.uri, "*SLEEP(*") or
      wildcard(http.request.uri, "*%27*") or
      wildcard(http.request.uri, "*%3B*")
    ) and
    // Ensure it's a query parameter, not a path segment
    http.request.uri contains "?"
  ]

Splunk SPL Query

index=web sourcetype=access_combined
| where method="GET"
| eval uri_decoded = urldecode(uri_path + "?" + uri_query)
| where 
    match(uri_query, "(?i)(union|select|sleep|waitfor|pg_sleep)") AND 
    ( match(uri_query, "(?i)and 1=1|or 1=1|--|%27|%3B") )
| stats count by src_ip, uri_query, host
| sort - count
| table _time, src_ip, host, uri_query, count

Wazuh OSSEC Rule

<group name="web,sql-injection,">
    <rule id="769726" level="12">
        <if_sid>31100</if_sid>  <!-- Parent: Apache access log decoding -->
        <match>GET</match>
        <regex>.*\?(.*)(union|select|sleep|waitfor|information_schema|%27|%3B).*</regex>
        <description>CVE-2025-64092: Suspicious SQL injection pattern in GET request detected</description>
        <group>attack.sql_injection,pci_dss_6.5.1,</group>
        <mitre>
            <id>T1190</id>
        </mitre>
    </rule>
</group>

Mitigation & Patch Guidance

Patch confidence: 2/4 (CLAIMED — single source claims patch, not independently confirmed).

1) Immediate Mitigations (until patch is verified)

• Web Application Firewall (WAF): Deploy or configure a WAF (e.g., ModSecurity, Cloudflare, AWS WAF) with strict rules to block SQL injection patterns in GET parameters. Use core rule set (CRS) 3.x.
• Input Validation: If source access is available, implement strict allowlist validation on all GET parameters. Reject any input containing SQL metacharacters (', ", ;, --, /*, */).
• Network Restriction: If the affected application is not meant to be public, restrict access via IP allowlisting or VPN.
• Database Least Privilege: Ensure the application's database account uses the minimum required privileges (e.g., no DROP, CREATE, or FILE privileges) to limit the blast radius of SQL injection.

2) Patch/Upgrade Steps

• Verify the claimed patch: Contact the vendor (if identified) or locate the advisory referenced by the single source. Request the exact version number and release notes.
• Apply the update: Once confirmed, deploy the patched version to all affected environments, including staging and production.
• Test post-patch: Run the detection rules above against the patched system to confirm no residual SQLi vectors remain.

3) Long-Term Hardening

• Parameterized Queries: Mandate prepared statements (PDO, mysqli, ORM) for all database interactions — eliminate string concatenation of user input.
• Code Review Pipeline: Implement automated SAST (Static Application Security Testing) tools into the CI/CD pipeline to flag SQLi patterns.
• Database Activity Monitoring (DAM): Deploy DAM solutions to detect anomalous queries at the DBMS level, independent of the application.
• Logging & SIEM Integration: Ensure web server access logs retain full URI query strings to enable forensic analysis.

References

1. NVD Entry: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64092
2. CWE-89 (SQL Injection): https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html
3. MITRE ATT&CK Technique T1190: https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1190/
4. OWASP SQL Injection Prevention Cheat Sheet: https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/SQL_Injection_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet.html
5. Vendor Advisory: Not yet published — verifying source claims; check vendor channels for updates.

Threat Actor Campaigns / Exploit-in-the-Wild: No confirmed exploit-in-the-wild activity has been publicly reported for CVE-2025-64092 at the time of writing. CISA KEV indicates Not Known Exploited. However, given the trivial nature of SQL injection and the lack of authentication requirements, active scanning for this vulnerability within web applications is considered likely. SOC teams should treat any exploitation attempts as high-priority incidents and investigate adjacent network segments.