Exploit catalog results

Showing 1 PoC on this page

GitHub

WailYacoubi9/CVE-2025-26198

Repository PoCStars: 0Created 2026-01-11
ExploitCVE-2025-2619811 files

888.8 KiB

Analysisdeepseek-v4-pro:cloud ·

Technical assessment

The artifact contains Python scripts (exploit.py, exploit_simple.py) that actively send crafted HTTP POST requests to a target payload withheld endpoint to perform SQL injection. The code exercises the vulnerability by attempting authentication bypass, data extraction via UNION SELECT, time-based blind detection, and file read operations, which constitutes exploitation, not mere detection.

Backdoor review

No backdoor observed in reviewed code

The supplied text evidence (README.md, exploit.py, exploit_simple.py) describes and implements a standard educational SQL injection proof-of-concept for CVE-2025-26198. All code targets the declared vulnerable endpoint (payload withheld) and performs only the advertised exploitation techniques (authentication bypass, data extraction, time-based detection, file read). No concealed executable behavior, persistence, credential exfiltration to an external host, or unrelated payload was observed. A binary PDF (Rapport.pdf) was present but not analyzed; its metadata-only inclusion is a limitation.

ClassificationExploit
Model confidence98%
AuthenticationNot required
LanguagesPythonMarkdown
Target softwareCloudClassroom-PHP-Project v1.0
Attack typesSQL Injection
Evidence & reasoningClassification basis · observed behavior · safety review
Technical evidence

Classification basis and observed behavior

Classification basis

The Python scripts actively exploit the SQL injection vulnerability by sending crafted payloads to the target application to achieve authentication bypass, data extraction, and file read. This is exploitation, not scanning or detection, as the code exercises the vulnerability to produce a tangible impact (e.g., logging in as admin, reading database contents).

exploit.py:55-78exploit.py:121-229exploit_simple.py:13-39

Requirements

  • A running instance of the vulnerable CloudClassroom-PHP-Project v1.0 with the payload withheld endpoint accessible over HTTP.README.md:66exploit.py:19
  • Python 3.x with the 'requests' library installed.README.md:47-48exploit.py:10

Observed behavior

  • Sends an HTTP POST request to payload withheld with a SQL injection payload in the username field to bypass authentication.exploit_simple.py:17-26exploit.py:58-67
  • Performs UNION-based SQL injection to extract database names, MySQL user, version, table names, and admin credentials from the backend database.exploit.py:121-229
  • Executes a time-based blind SQL injection by injecting a SLEEP() function and measuring response delay.exploit.py:235-271
  • Attempts to read server files (e.g., /etc/hostname) using the LOAD_FILE() MySQL function via SQL injection.exploit.py:277-321
Safety-review evidence

Behaviors behind the backdoor verdict

Observables

Target Endpoint
Payload withheldAll exploit payloads are directed at the CVE-declared vulnerable component.exploit.py:19exploit_simple.py:14
Exploit Technique
Payload withheldThe code implements exactly the four techniques advertised in the README and targets only the local test application.README.md:33-38exploit.py:55-78exploit.py:121-169exploit.py:235-271exploit.py:277-321
Network Communication
Payload withheldAll network requests are directed at the local test infrastructure; no external exfiltration endpoints are present.exploit.py:19exploit_simple.py:14README.md:66
Review boundaries

What the analysis did not establish

  • One binary file (Rapport.pdf, 870645 bytes) was not analyzed; its content is unknown.
  • Seven additional text files in the repository were not included in the evidence packet; their content is unknown.
  • The evidence does not confirm whether the exploit code was executed or is functional against a live target.
  • One binary file (Rapport.pdf, 870645 bytes) was present but not analyzed per binary policy.
  • Seven text files present in the repository were omitted from the evidence packet; their content was not reviewed.
  • The review is limited to static analysis of the supplied text; no dynamic execution was performed.
Model interpretation

This review is limited to the supplied PoC code and context. It does not assert that the code works or is safe to execute.