CVE-2023-45826: Authenticated SQL Injection in leantime
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 27/100)
- A ready-made attack module is public (Nuclei); exploiting it takes no special expertise.
- Public proof-of-concept code exists (Exploit-DB / GitHub); there is no record of exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 2.1% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 81.8% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: Leantime leantime 2.4-beta-4.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to Leantime leantime 2.4-beta-4 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
Leantime is an open source project management system. A 'userId' variable in `app/domain/files/repositories/class.files.php` is not parameterized. An authenticated attacker can send a carefully crafted POST request to `/api/jsonrpc` to exploit an SQL injection vulnerability. Confidentiality is impacted as it allows for dumping information from the database. This issue has been addressed in version 2.4-beta-4. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
- Published
- Oct 19, 2023
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 2.1% · 81th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-89
Report tools
Action score
27
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 26 / 40 · 6.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 2.1%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 6.5
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 6.5
- agree
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
- Proof of concept exists, no weaponized module
- 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 |
|---|---|---|
| leantime | leantime | cpe:2.3:a:leantime:leantime |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- leantime leantimebefore 2.4
- leantime leantime2.4
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.
Leantime leantime
- < 2.4-beta-4affected
Same product
leantime: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-85990Leantime: Any Authenticated User Can Self-Escalate to Admin via Unauthorized JSON-RPC Methods35Monitor
- CVE-2024-27474Leantime 3.0.6 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF).35Monitor
- CVE-2020-5292Time-based blind injection in Leantime35Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2023-33961May 30, 2023 · Leantime Stored Cross-site Scripting Vulnerability21Monitor
- Later →CVE-2024-27703Mar 13, 2024 · Cross Site Scripting vulnerability in Leantime 3.0.6 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the to-do title parameter.21Monitor
- Later →CVE-2024-27705Apr 3, 2024 · Cross Site Scripting vulnerability in Leantime v3.0.6 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via upload of crafted PDF file to the files30Monitor
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Leantime leantime | 2.4-beta-4 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
Exploit status
Proof of concept available
A public proof of concept or detection signature exists. Exploit knowledge is out there; don't delay patching.
Evidence
- Nuclei detection template ×1
Noroxi does not host or link to exploit code. Metasploit module names and Nuclei template ids are shown (names, not code); Exploit-DB entries and PoC repositories are given as counts only.
| Source | Kind | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Nuclei detection template | Nuclei template CVE-2023-45826 | — |
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.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
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.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.