SQL injection vulnerability in CPDB in application/controllers/admin/participantsaction.php in LimeSurvey 2.05+ Build 140618 allows remote a
SQL injection vulnerability in CPDB in application/controllers/admin/participantsaction.php in LimeSurvey 2.05+ Build 140618 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the sidx parameter in a JSON request to admin/participants/sa/getParticipants_json, related to a search parameter.
- Published
- Jul 21, 2014
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.9% · 79th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-89
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
31
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 30 / 40 · 7.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 1.9%
Affected systems
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| limesurvey | limesurvey | cpe:2.3:a:limesurvey:limesurvey |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- limesurvey limesurvey2.05+
Same product
limesurvey: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2020-11455LimeSurvey before 4.1.12+200324 contains a path traversal vulnerability in application/controllers/admin/LimeSurveyFileManager.php.68This week
- CVE-2007-3632Multiple PHP remote file inclusion vulnerabilities in LimeSurvey (aka PHPSurveyor) 1.49RC2 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP c45Plan
- CVE-2019-9960The downloadZip function in application/controllers/admin/export.php in LimeSurvey through 3.16.1+190225 allows a relative path.43Plan
- CVE-2020-11456LimeSurvey before 4.1.12+200324 has stored XSS in application/views/admin/surveysgroups/surveySettings.php and application/models/SurveysGro42Plan
- CVE-2019-16184A CSV injection vulnerability was found in Limesurvey before 3.17.14 that allows survey participants to inject commands via their survey res40Plan
- CVE-2025-56422A deserialization vulnerability in LimeSurvey before v6.15.0+250623 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the server.39Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- P · data can be read
- Integrity
- P · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- P · the service can be disrupted
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Confidentiality impact
- P
- Integrity impact
- P
- Availability impact
- P
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-89 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')CVSS vector
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
nvd-primary
Root cause
The query text is built by concatenating user input. The database cannot tell where the data ends and the command begins.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-89 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
const owner = req.query.owner;const rows = await db.query( "SELECT * FROM files WHERE owner = '" + owner + "'");Fixed
const owner = req.query.owner;const rows = await db.query( "SELECT * FROM files WHERE owner = $1", [owner]);Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Object Relational Mapping InjectionCAPEC-109likelihood: Low · High
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter TamperingCAPEC-110likelihood: High · Very High
- Expanding Control over the Operating System from the DatabaseCAPEC-470Very High
- SQL InjectionCAPEC-66likelihood: High · High
- Blind SQL InjectionCAPEC-7likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for all 385,000+ vulnerabilities; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for helpChange log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.