Threadlinqs IntelligenceStart free

Weakness · BaseCWE-89

CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')

Likelihood of exploit: HighKEV-linkedBase

As of 2026-10-05, CWE-89 (SQL Injection) underlies 101 CVEs tracked by Threadlinqs, 8 of them in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and is cited by 73 tracked threats. MITRE rates its likelihood of exploit as High.

CVEs
101Mapped to CWE-89
CISA KEV
8Exploited in the wild
Critical
22CVSS v3 critical CVEs
Threats
73Tracked campaigns citing it
Likelihood
HighMITRE likelihood of exploit

Last updated:

What is CWE-89?

The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.

CWE-89 is a base-level weakness in MITRE’s Common Weakness Enumeration, with a MITRE likelihood of exploit of High. Applicable platforms: Language: Not Language-Specific; Language: SQL; Technology: Database Server.

Source: MITRE CWE (CWE-89 definition, reproduced verbatim). Counts and linkage below are Threadlinqs data.

Consequences

  • Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability — Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands. Adversaries could execute system commands, typically by changing the SQL statement to redirect output to a file that can then be executed.
  • Confidentiality — Read Application Data. Since SQL databases generally hold sensitive data, loss of confidentiality is a frequent problem with SQL injection vulnerabilities.
  • Authentication — Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Bypass Protection Mechanism. If poor SQL commands are used to check user names and passwords or perform other kinds of authentication, it may be possible to connect to the product as another user with no previous knowledge of the password.
  • Access Control — Bypass Protection Mechanism. If authorization information is held in a SQL database, it may be possible to change this information through the successful exploitation of a SQL injection vulnerability.
  • Integrity — Modify Application Data. Just as it may be possible to read sensitive information, it is also possible to modify or even delete this information with a SQL injection attack.

Source: MITRE CWE, common consequences.

How CWE-89 is exploited in the wild

Threadlinqs maps 101 CVEs to CWE-89, published between 2021-11-19 and 2026-10-04. 8 are listed in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, the authoritative record of exploitation in the wild, and 3 are tied to ransomware campaigns. By CVSS v3 severity the set splits into 22 critical, 53 high, 20 medium, 1 low. The highest EPSS score in the set is 94.1% (CVE-2023-48788), the modelled probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. 73 tracked threats reference CWE-89 directly or through a CVE it covers; the most recent is “TIKTOUK Toolkit Harvests AWS, SMTP and Database Credentials from Exposed WordPress Backups and Config Files (CVE-2026-60137, CVE-2026-63030)” (2026-10-04). Affected products concentrate in SourceCodester (15), itsourcecode (11), code-projects (9), among 51 vendors in total.

Vulnerabilities (CVEs)

Showing 40 of 101 CVEs mapped to CWE-89, CISA KEV first, then by CVSS score.

  • CVE-2026-72898 — CISA KEV · CVSS 10 critical · EPSS 10.4% · published 2026-08-10
  • CVE-2023-48788 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 94.1% · published 2024-03-12
  • CVE-2021-44026 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 64.0% · published 2021-11-19
  • CVE-2026-21643 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 62.5% · published 2026-02-06
  • CVE-2026-42208 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 54.2% · published 2026-05-08
  • CVE-2026-9082 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 34.1% · published 2026-05-20
  • CVE-2026-76461 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 2.1% · published 2026-09-14
  • CVE-2026-9586 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 1.0% · published 2026-07-17
  • CVE-2026-48330 — CVSS 10 critical · published 2026-08-03
  • CVE-2026-21708 — CVSS 9.9 critical · EPSS 1.1% · published 2026-03-12
  • CVE-2026-48326 — CVSS 9.9 critical · published 2026-08-03
  • CVE-2026-65321 — CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-08-02
  • CVE-2026-60090 — CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-07-11
  • CVE-2026-49048 — CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-06-28
  • CVE-2025-69943 — CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 0.1% · published 2026-07-29
  • CVE-2025-67403 — CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 0.1% · published 2026-07-29
  • CVE-2026-75330 — CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 0.1% · published 2026-08-26
  • CVE-2026-75336 — CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 0.1% · published 2026-08-26
  • CVE-2025-67404 — CVSS 9.8 critical · published 2026-07-29
  • CVE-2026-54658 — CVSS 9.8 critical · published 2026-07-28
  • CVE-2026-34260 — CVSS 9.6 critical · EPSS 0.0% · published 2026-05-12
  • CVE-2026-26980 — CVSS 9.4 critical · EPSS 56.6% · published 2026-02-20
  • CVE-2026-19949 — CVSS 8.8 high · EPSS 0.5% · published 2026-08-25
  • CVE-2026-26116 — CVSS 8.8 high · EPSS 0.0% · published 2026-03-10
  • CVE-2026-12044 — CVSS 8.8 high · published 2026-06-18
  • CVE-2026-48448 — CVSS 8.6 high · EPSS 0.3% · published 2026-07-30
  • CVE-2017-20278 — CVSS 8.2 high · published 2026-06-19
  • CVE-2017-20279 — CVSS 8.2 high · published 2026-06-19
  • CVE-2017-20280 — CVSS 8.2 high · published 2026-06-19
  • CVE-2017-20281 — CVSS 8.2 high · published 2026-06-19
  • CVE-2026-81728 — CVSS 8.1 high · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-08-27
  • CVE-2026-48842 — CVSS 8.1 high · EPSS 0.0% · published 2026-05-25
  • CVE-2025-24799 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 86.3% · published 2025-03-18
  • CVE-2026-41640 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 1.8% · published 2026-05-07
  • CVE-2026-61685 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.5% · published 2026-09-22
  • CVE-2026-84208 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-09-01
  • CVE-2026-14652 — CVSS 7.3 high · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-07-04
  • CVE-2026-14653 — CVSS 7.3 high · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-07-04
  • CVE-2026-14654 — CVSS 7.3 high · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-07-04
  • CVE-2026-14660 — CVSS 7.3 high · EPSS 0.4% · published 2026-07-04

Affected vendors

Threat activity

73 tracked threats cite CWE-89; the 25 most recent are listed.

Mitigations

  • Architecture and Design / Libraries or Frameworks: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. For example, consider using persistence layers such as Hibernate or Enterprise Java Beans, which can provide significant protection against SQL injection if used properly.
  • Architecture and Design / Parameterization: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. Process SQL queries using prepared statements, parameterized queries, or stored procedures. These features should accept parameters or variables and support strong typing. Do not dynamically construct and execute query strings within these features using "exec" or similar functionality, since this may re-introduce the possibility of SQL injection. [REF-867]
  • Architecture and Design, Operation / Environment Hardening: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations. Specifically, follow the principle of least privilege when creating user accounts to a SQL database. The database users should only have the minimum privileges necessary to use their account. If the requirements of the system indicate that a user…
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Implementation / Output Encoding: While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88). Instead of building a new implementation, such features may be available in the database or programming language…
  • Implementation / Input Validation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected…
  • Architecture and Design / Enforcement by Conversion: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
  • Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to…
  • Operation / Firewall: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481.
  • Operation, Implementation / Environment Hardening: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

Source: MITRE CWE, potential mitigations.

Detection methods (MITRE CWE)

  • Automated Static Analysis: This weakness can often be detected using automated static analysis tools. Many modern tools use data flow analysis or constraint-based techniques to minimize the number of false positives. Automated static analysis might not be able to recognize when proper input validation is being performed, leading to false positives - i.e., warnings that do not have any security consequences or do not require any code changes. Automated static analysis might not be able to detect the usage of custom API…
  • Automated Dynamic Analysis (effectiveness: Moderate): This weakness can be detected using dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the software using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The software's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
  • Manual Analysis: Manual analysis can be useful for finding this weakness, but it might not achieve desired code coverage within limited time constraints. This becomes difficult for weaknesses that must be considered for all inputs, since the attack surface can be too large.
  • Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode (effectiveness: High): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
  • Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation (effectiveness: High): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Database Scanners Cost effective for partial coverage: Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner
  • Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer
  • Manual Static Analysis - Source Code (effectiveness: High): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Manual Source Code Review (not inspections) Cost effective for partial coverage: Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source
  • Automated Static Analysis - Source Code (effectiveness: High): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Source: MITRE CWE, detection methods. Threadlinqs detection rules for the threats above are Blue tier and higher.