CVE-2026-34914: Revive Adserver SQL Injection Vulnerability in zone-include.php
Revive Adserver versions 6.0.6 and earlier contain a SQL injection vulnerability in the zone-include.php script. A low-privileged user can manipulate the clientid parameter to inject SQL commands, potentially accessing, modifying, or deleting sensitive data from the underlying database. The vulnerability requires authentication, which limits exposure but still poses significant risk in shared hosting or multi-tenant environments where user accounts are readily available.
Source data · NVD / CISA · public domain
- CVSS
- 3.0 · 8.3 HIGH · CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
- Weaknesses (CWE)
- CWE-89
- Affected products
- 0 configuration(s)
- Published / Modified
- 2026-06-23 / 2026-06-23
NVD description (verbatim)
A missing sanitisation of user input in the zone-include.php script of Revive Adserver 6.0.6 and earlier. A low‑privileged user could exploit the clientid parameter to perform blind SQL injection attacks. Input sanitisation has been improved to ensure that all parameters processed by the script are properly validated.
1 reference(s) · View on NVD →
SEC.co analysis · AI-assisted, reviewed against source
Technical summary
CVE-2026-34914 is a blind SQL injection flaw originating from insufficient input validation in zone-include.php. The clientid parameter fails to properly sanitize user-supplied input before inclusion in SQL queries, enabling an authenticated attacker to craft malicious input that alters query logic. Blind SQL injection—where the attacker cannot directly observe query results—typically requires inference techniques or time-based detection, but the underlying weakness (CWE-89) allows both data exfiltration and potential code execution depending on database permissions and configuration.
Business impact
Exploitation could allow theft of advertiser data, campaign information, user credentials, and other sensitive records stored in the Adserver database. An attacker could also modify campaign settings, billing records, or reporting metrics, undermining business integrity and customer trust. In environments where Revive Adserver manages ad delivery for multiple clients, a compromise affects all served parties. Remediation delays increase exposure window and potential liability, particularly for regulated industries handling customer personally identifiable information (PII).
Affected systems
Revive Adserver versions 6.0.6 and earlier are affected. Organizations running this software should verify their current version via the admin interface or by checking the deployed code version. The vulnerability does not require remote code execution privileges but does require a user account with login access to the Adserver application, whether administrative or low-privileged.
Exploitability
Exploitability is moderate-to-high despite the authentication requirement. Low-privileged users—such as advertiser account holders, resellers, or contractor accounts—can trigger the flaw. Blind SQL injection tools and techniques are well-established; successful exploitation typically requires iterative requests to infer database structure and content. No public exploit code has been confirmed in the KEV catalog, but the attack surface (unauthenticated access is not required, but low-privilege access is common) and straightforward injection vector make this a credible risk in production deployments.
Remediation
Upgrade Revive Adserver to a patched release that includes improved input sanitisation for the clientid parameter. The vendor has addressed this issue by implementing proper parameter validation. Organizations should apply the patched version following standard change management procedures. For environments unable to upgrade immediately, review database user permissions to limit the impact of potential SQL injection, and monitor query logs for suspicious patterns.
Patch guidance
Consult the official Revive Adserver release notes and security advisories to identify the earliest patched version following 6.0.6. Apply patches in a test environment first to validate compatibility with custom configurations or extensions. If immediate patching is not feasible, implement Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block SQL injection patterns in the clientid parameter, though this is not a permanent substitute for patching. Establish a maintenance window to deploy the fix; the HIGH severity and authenticated attack vector warrant prioritization but allow brief planning.
Detection guidance
Monitor database logs for unusual SQL queries, particularly those containing suspicious syntax in or near zone-include.php processing. Track HTTP requests to zone-include.php with unusual or encoded values in the clientid parameter. Implement intrusion detection signatures for blind SQL injection payloads (time delays, conditional logic, union-based injection syntax). Review Adserver access logs for anomalous activity by low-privileged users, and correlate with database query logs to identify exploitation attempts. Enable verbose logging if the Adserver offers it.
Why prioritize this
This vulnerability merits immediate attention due to its HIGH CVSS score (8.3), which reflects high impact on confidentiality and critical impact on integrity and availability. Although exploitation requires authentication, low-privileged account access is common and difficult to strictly control. The combination of SQL injection (a well-understood attack class) and its position in a user-facing script elevates practical risk. Organizations operating ad-serving infrastructure that manages client data should treat this as priority-one remediation.
Risk score, explained
The CVSS 3.0 score of 8.3 (HIGH) reflects: network-accessible attack vector (AV:N), low attack complexity (AC:L), requirement for low privilege (PR:L), no user interaction (UI:N), unchanged scope (S:U), and confidentiality loss (C:L) combined with high integrity and availability impact (I:H, A:H). The score appropriately captures the risk of data theft, modification, and potential denial of service through malicious SQL. The authentication requirement prevents a 9.0+ rating but does not significantly reduce practical risk in multi-user deployments.
Frequently asked questions
Do we need admin credentials to exploit this vulnerability?
No. The vulnerability can be exploited by any user with valid login credentials, including low-privileged users such as advertisers or partners with basic account access. This makes it more dangerous in shared or multi-tenant Adserver deployments.
What data is at risk if we're compromised?
Depending on database permissions, an attacker could access advertiser accounts, campaign data, user credentials, billing information, and audience data. Blind SQL injection may also allow insertion or deletion of records, compromising data integrity and business operations.
Can we safely delay patching if we restrict user access?
Restricting the number of user accounts and auditing access helps reduce risk, but is not a substitute for patching. If any low-privileged accounts exist, the vulnerability remains exploitable. Patching is the definitive fix; access controls are supplementary defense-in-depth measures.
How long will exploitation take to detect?
Blind SQL injection typically requires multiple iterative requests to infer data or exfiltrate records. A well-tuned database and application log monitoring setup can detect unusual query patterns or failed authentication attempts. However, blind attacks may evade basic monitoring if the attacker uses slow, distributed techniques.
This analysis is provided for informational purposes to support vulnerability management and remediation planning. It does not constitute legal or professional security advice. Organizations should verify all technical details, patch availability, and compatibility against vendor advisories and their own infrastructure. Exploit code, proof-of-concept demonstrations, and weaponized payloads are not included herein. Always test patches in non-production environments before deployment. Consult your security team, vendor, and relevant compliance frameworks when developing remediation strategies. Source: NVD (public-domain), retrieved 2026-07-28. Analysis generated by SEC.co (claude-haiku-4-5).
Weaknesses (CWE)
Related vulnerabilities
- CVE-2016-20062HIGHSQL Injection in Simply Poll 1.4.1 WordPress Plugin - Unauthenticated Data Theft
- CVE-2016-20063HIGHSQL Injection in Single Personal Message 1.0.3 – Credential & Data Theft Risk
- CVE-2016-20065HIGHUnauthenticated SQL Injection in Product Catalog 8 WordPress Plugin
- CVE-2016-20068HIGHUnauthenticated SQL Injection in WordPress Booking Calendar Contact Form 1.0.23
- CVE-2016-20069HIGHUnauthenticated SQL Injection in WordPress Booking Calendar Contact Form 1.0.23
- CVE-2016-20071HIGHCritical SQL Injection in WordPress 404 Redirection Manager Plugin v1.0
- CVE-2016-20072HIGHBBS e-Franchise WordPress Plugin SQL Injection – Remote Data Exfiltration Risk
- CVE-2016-20073HIGHSQL Injection in Answer My Question 1.3 WordPress Plugin