Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-26520 is a high-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Cacti Cacti. Its CVSS base score is 7.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 38th 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-2025-26520 is a SQL injection vulnerability (CWE-89) affecting Cacti versions through 1.2.29. The flaw resides in the template function within host_templates.php, where the graph_template parameter is insufficiently sanitized, allowing malicious SQL payloads. This issue stems from an incomplete fix for the prior CVE-2024-54146 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.6 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H).
The vulnerability can be exploited remotely by an authenticated attacker with low privileges, requiring no user interaction. Successful exploitation enables limited confidentiality and integrity impacts, such as reading or modifying minor data, alongside high availability disruption, potentially leading to denial-of-service conditions through database manipulation.
Mitigation is addressed in Cacti commit 7fa60c03ad4a69c701ac6b77c85a8927df7acd51 and pull request #6096 on the project's GitHub repository. Security practitioners should apply this patch or upgrade to a version incorporating the fix to prevent exploitation.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-4207
Vulnerability Data
Cacti through 1.2.29 allows SQL injection in the template function in host_templates.php via the graph_template parameter. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2024-54146.
- 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.