Account takeover via SQL Injection in UI layout preferences in GLPI
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Plan (action score 50/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 36.2% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 98.4% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: glpi-project glpi 10.0.10.
Add it to your regular patch cycle. Upgrade to glpi-project glpi 10.0.10 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
GLPI stands for Gestionnaire Libre de Parc Informatique is a Free Asset and IT Management Software package, that provides ITIL Service Desk features, licenses tracking and software auditing. UI layout preferences management can be hijacked to lead to SQL injection. This injection can be use to takeover an administrator account. Users are advised to upgrade to version 10.0.10. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
- Published
- Sep 27, 2023
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 36.2% · 98th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-89
Report tools
Action score
50
Plan
Add it to your regular patch cycle.
- CVSS
- 39 / 40 · 9.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 11 / 30 · 36.2%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 9.8
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 8.1
- 1.7 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| glpi-project | glpi | cpe:2.3:a:glpi-project:glpi |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- glpi-project glpi10.0.0 and later · before 10.0.10
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
glpi-project glpi
- >= 10.0.0, < 10.0.10affected
Same product
glpi-project: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2022-35914/vendor/htmlawed/htmlawed/htmLawedTest.php in the htmlawed module for GLPI through 10.0.2 allows PHP code injection.KEV99Now
- CVE-2025-24799GLPI allows unauthenticated SQL injection through the inventory endpoint65This week
- CVE-2023-46727GLPI SQL injection through inventory agent request59Plan
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2023-36808Jul 5, 2023 · GLPI vulnerable to SQL injection through Computer Virtual Machine information55Plan
- ← EarlierCVE-2023-37278Jul 13, 2023 · GLPI vulnerable to SQL injection via dashboard administration36Monitor
- Later →CVE-2023-41321Sep 27, 2023 · Sensitive fields enumeration through API in GLPI26Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| glpi-project glpi | 10.0.10 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
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
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-89 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.