Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-39361 is a critical-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Fedoraproject Fedora. 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 0.3% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Cacti, an open source operational monitoring and fault management framework, contains a SQL injection vulnerability in graph_view.php that affects versions prior to 1.2.25. The flaw is tracked as CWE-89 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8, reflecting network-accessible attack complexity that requires no authentication or user interaction.
Unauthenticated guest users, enabled by default, can reach graph_view.php and supply crafted input that triggers the injection. Successful exploitation may allow attackers to escalate privileges to administrative level or achieve remote code execution on the underlying server.
The project has released version 1.2.25 to correct the issue, and administrators are advised to upgrade immediately; the advisory states there are no known workarounds. Multiple distribution lists, including Debian LTS and Fedora, have published coordinated update notifications referencing the same fix.
The associated EPSS score remains elevated near its recorded peak of 0.93, indicating sustained exploitation interest following disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-43087
Vulnerability Data
Cacti is an open source operational monitoring and fault management framework. Affected versions are subject to a SQL injection discovered in graph_view.php. Since guest users can access graph_view.php without authentication by default, if guest users are being utilized in an…
more
enabled state, there could be the potential for significant damage. Attackers may exploit this vulnerability, and there may be possibilities for actions such as the usurpation of administrative privileges or remote code execution. This issue has been addressed in version 1.2.25. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.2.5
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
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.
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.
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.
The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.
Early warnings and shared best-practice information help organizations apply the latest remediation techniques against SQL-injection vulnerabilities.
Threat-intelligence feeds that surface new SQL-injection campaigns enable rapid updates to query-construction defenses and detection signatures before exploitation occurs.
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.
Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.