Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-3105 is a high-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Acquia Mautic. 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 21th 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-2026-3105 is a SQL injection vulnerability (CWE-89) affecting Mautic, an open-source marketing automation platform. The issue resides in the API endpoint used for retrieving contact activities, specifically in the query construction for the Contact Activity timeline. The parameter responsible for determining the sort direction is not strictly validated against an allowlist, enabling the injection of arbitrary SQL commands via the API. The vulnerability was published on 2026-02-24 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.6 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L).
Authenticated users with low privileges (PR:L) can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network (AV:N) with low attack complexity (AC:L) and without requiring user interaction (UI:N). Successful exploitation allows attackers to inject arbitrary SQL commands, potentially leading to high confidentiality impacts such as unauthorized data disclosure, low integrity impacts like data modification, and low availability impacts.
The Mautic security advisory recommends updating to version 4.4.19, 5.2.10, 6.0.8, 7.0.1, or later to mitigate the vulnerability, with no workarounds available. Additional details are provided in the GitHub Security Advisory at https://github.com/mautic/mautic/security/advisories/GHSA-r5j5-q42h-fc93, and questions can be directed to security@mautic.org.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8548
Vulnerability Data
SummaryThis advisory addresses a SQL injection vulnerability in the API endpoint used for retrieving contact activities. A vulnerability exists in the query construction for the Contact Activity timeline where the parameter responsible for determining the sort direction was not strictly…
more
validated against an allowlist, potentially allowing authenticated users to inject arbitrary SQL commands via the API. MitigationPlease update to 4.4.19, 5.2.10, 6.0.8, 7.0.1 or later. WorkaroundsNone. ReferencesIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory: Email us at security@mautic.org
- 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.