Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-1751 is a high-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Themeum Tutor Lms. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Protocol or Service Impersonation (T1001.003); ranked in the top 12% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
The Tutor LMS eLearning and online course plugin for WordPress is affected by a time-based SQL injection vulnerability (CWE-89) in all versions through 2.6.1. The flaw resides in the handling of the question_id parameter, where insufficient escaping of user input and inadequate parameterization of an existing SQL query allow additional clauses to be appended.
Authenticated attackers holding subscriber, student, or higher privileges can exploit the issue over the network to extract sensitive database contents. The vulnerability carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.8, reflecting high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability under an attack that requires no user interaction.
Public references point to a corrective changeset on the WordPress plugin Trac that updates the affected code in classes/Utils.php, indicating an official patch has been issued for versions beyond 2.6.1. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.3525 with no material increase observed after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-17478
Vulnerability Data
The Tutor LMS – eLearning and online course solution plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to time-based SQL Injection via the question_id parameter in all versions up to, and including, 2.6.1 due to insufficient escaping on the user supplied parameter and…
more
lack of sufficient preparation on the existing SQL query. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber/student access or higher, to append additional SQL queries into already existing queries that can be used to extract sensitive information from the database.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
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.
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.
A.5.6 only improves knowledge flow, awareness of threats/patches and access to specialist advice; it does not stop SQL injection from being exploitable in code that still contains the flaw.