Cyber Resilience

CVE-2023-3211

SQLi in Dmparekh Wordpress Database Administrator ≤ 1.0.3

Public PoCSQLi
Published
16 January 2024
Modified
11 June 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 9.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.010 61th percentile
Risk Priority 73 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2023-3211 is a critical-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Dmparekh Wordpress Database Administrator. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 39% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

The WordPress Database Administrator WordPress plugin through 1.0.3 does not properly sanitise and escape a parameter before using it in a SQL statement via an AJAX action available to unauthenticated users, leading to a SQL injection.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-7385Same product class: CMS core
CVE-2023-38249Same product class: CMS core
CVE-2023-38221Same product class: CMS core
CVE-2023-5336Same product class: CMS core
CVE-2023-52134Same product class: CMS core
CVE-2024-8624Same product class: CMS core
CVE-2023-38250Same product class: CMS core
CVE-2023-32121Same product class: CMS core
CVE-2017-8917Same product class: CMS core
CVE-2023-26034Shared CWE-89

Affected Assets

dmparekh
wordpress database administrator
≤ 1.0.3

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V6.2.5

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover SQLi flaws before deployment but does not stop their introduction.

Input validation directly stops untrusted data from reaching SQL query construction without neutralization.

Secure engineering principles require parameterized queries and input sanitization that structurally eliminate SQLi.

System monitoring can identify attempted SQLi exploitation via anomalous queries after the weakness exists.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly target injection flaws during coding and review so largely prevent CWE-89 introduction, yet the single broad outcome leaves residual risk from incomplete neutralization techniques or missed edge cases.

PR.AT-02 partial match
prevents

Training raises developer awareness of SQLi risks and can reduce introduction likelihood (partial) but removes none of the actual coding flaw's risk by itself since technical neutralization is still required.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

finds

The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.

prevents

Early warnings and shared best-practice information help organizations apply the latest remediation techniques against SQL-injection vulnerabilities.

prevents

Threat-intelligence feeds that surface new SQL-injection campaigns enable rapid updates to query-construction defenses and detection signatures before exploitation occurs.

prevents

Secure-coding rules and security testing phases mandate the use of parameterized queries or equivalent escaping, preventing the construction of dynamic SQL statements from untrusted input.

prevents

Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.

References