CVE-2025-15625
SQLi in Sparxsystems Pro Cloud Server 6.0.163
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:P/AU:Y/R:I/V:C/RE:M/U:RedCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-15625 is a critical-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Sparxsystems Pro Cloud Server. Its CVSS base score is 9.5 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 34th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-209515
Vulnerability Data
Unauthenticated user is able to execute arbitrary SQL commands in Sparx Pro Cloud Server database in certain cases.
- 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
Access enforcement directly stops unauthorized actors from obtaining sensitive information.
Information flow enforcement structurally prevents sensitive data from reaching unauthorized recipients.
Protection of information at rest prevents unauthorized exposure of stored sensitive data.
Transmission confidentiality mechanisms stop exposure of sensitive data on the wire.
Least privilege reduces the set of actors who can reach sensitive information.
Developer testing and evaluation can discover SQLi flaws before deployment but does not stop their introduction.
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.5.10 only requires awareness, a topic-specific acceptable-use policy stating expected behaviours/monitoring, and procedures referencing classification and other controls; per the owner's explicit rule on labelling and similar dependency-style clauses, this does not itself prevent exposure (CWE-200) unless access/DLP/etc. act on it.
Requiring the return of all physical and electronic assets plus secure deletion of organizational data from personal devices reduces the chance that sensitive information remains accessible to departing personnel.
A.5.12 only defines and communicates a classification scheme so that protection needs can be understood; per the owner's explicit rule, labeling/classification does not itself prevent exposure and requires other controls (e.g. access enforcement) to act on it.
By requiring classification labels and metadata on all information assets, the control makes it harder for sensitive data to be inadvertently exposed because downstream systems and users can recognize and enforce handling rules based on those labels.