Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:LSummary
CVE-2025-26346 is a medium-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Q-Free Maxtime. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 48th 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 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.
CVE-2025-26346 is a SQL injection vulnerability classified under CWE-89, stemming from improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command. It affects Q-Free MaxTime in versions less than or equal to 2.11.0, specifically within the maxprofile/menu/model.lua component at the editUserGroupMenu endpoint. Published on 2025-02-12, the flaw enables an authenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary SQL commands through crafted HTTP requests.
The vulnerability requires high privileges (PR:H) for exploitation over the network (AV:N) with low attack complexity (AC:L) and no user interaction (UI:N). A successful attack can compromise data integrity (I:H) and cause limited availability impact (A:L), but does not affect confidentiality (C:N) or change the scope (S:U). The CVSS v3.1 base score reflects a moderate severity of 5.5.
Mitigation guidance is available in the Nozomi Networks vulnerability advisory at https://www.nozominetworks.com/labs/vulnerability-advisories-cve-2025-26346.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-4158
Vulnerability Data
A CWE-89 "Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')" in maxprofile/menu/model.lua (editUserGroupMenu endpoint) in Q-Free MaxTime less than or equal to version 2.11.0 allows an authenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary SQL commands via crafted…
more
HTTP requests.
- 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.
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.