🎯 CVE-2026-17350 MEDIUM 5.3 🔥 EPSS 22% 🧪 PoC 🇪🇺 EUVD
📄 .md Alle CVEs anzeigen ✕

CVE-2026-17350 | The per-tool permission system (custom roles / role-based tool permissions, introduced in pgAdmin 4 9.3) did not enforce its permission check consistently. In SERVER mode, pgAdmin 4 gates each tool behind a per-tool Flask-Security permission, but the permission decorator (permissions_required) was applied only to a single "front door" route per tool. Every other backend route and Socket.IO handler in that tool's workflow relied solely on pga_login_required/so

The per-tool permission system (custom roles / role-based tool permissions, introduced in pgAdmin 4 9.3) did not enforce its permission check consistently. In SERVER mode, pgAdmin 4 gates each tool behind a per-tool Flask-Security permission, but the permission decorator (permissions_required) was applied only to a single "front door" route per tool. Every other backend route and Socket.IO handler in that tool's workflow relied solely on pga_login_required/socket_login_required, which check authentication but not the tool permission.

The reporter verified three cases against a test build: (1) a user without tools_query_tool permission received 403 on the protected sqleditor initialization route, but the same session went on to connect the server, initialize the viewdata backend chain, and retrieve real table row content; (2) a user without tools_grant_wizard received 403 on the protected acl route, but the same session still enumerated grantable objects, generated GRANT SQL, and successfully applied it -- confirmed database-side via has_table_privilege(); (3) a user without tools_schema_diff received 403 on the protected panel route, but the same session initialized schema diff, enumerated and connected databases, and obtained real DDL differences via the compare_database Socket.IO handler. The reporter also confirmed a related but distinct issue: a non-owner triggering /misc/workspace/adhoc_connect_server against an administrator-owned shared server caused pgAdmin to persist a new server row still owned by the administrator (user_id/shared unchanged from the source), even though the connection attempt itself reported failure.

During remediation, the same front-door-only permission gap was found to also affect the ERD, PSQL, and Debugger tools, and the Backup, Restore, Maintenance, and Import/Export blueprints, none of which were part of the original report; these were fixed using the same pattern as an extension of the reported defect class.

An authenticated user who had valid pgAdmin login and a stored, working database connection, but had been explicitly denied a specific tool's permission by an administrator, could therefore still drive that tool end-to-end through its other routes and sockets, including obtaining an interactive psql session over the /pty Socket.IO namespace and invoking backup/restore/maintenance/import-export jobs.

Because the bypass only restores access to tools operating over the user's own already-authenticated database connection, it does not grant the user any database privilege they did not already hold; it circumvents pgAdmin's own tool-level access-control policy (an organisational segregation-of-duties control, separate from database-level authorization), letting a user reach a pgAdmin feature an administrator intended to withhold from them, using capabilities their existing database role already permits through other means.

Socket.IO event handlers had no permission-aware equivalent of permissions_required; only socket_login_required existed, checking authentication but not the tool permission.

Fix adds a socket_permissions_required decorator (mirroring permissions_required, honouring the Administrator bypass, reading permissions via has_permission()) and applies it, alongside permissions_required, as the outermost decorator on every backend route and Socket.IO handler for the affected tools. Regression tests assert 403 on every gated route and socket handler for a permission-less user.

This issue affects pgAdmin 4 in SERVER mode: from 9.3 before 9.17.

Klassifikation & Betroffenheit:
pgadmin.org pgAdmin 4 9.3 <9.17pgadmin pgadmin_4 *
Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') 🎯 Medium

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

🛡️ Empfohlene Mitigation: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Vollständige Definition bei MITRE ➔
🩹 Patch verfügbar (OSV):
🩹 067f7af2274cf034623426d2b74a7695018a5f1f (Commit) 🩹 461c3afba92baad37c70a6fbd52d205d13a9de53 (Commit)
📚 Referenzen & Quellen:
Ausnutzungs-Zeitleiste:
CVSS-Vektor-Analyse: 5.3
AV · Angriffsvektor Netzwerk
AC · Komplexität Gering
PR · Privilegien Gering
UI · Interaktion Keine
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Veröffentlicht:31.07.2026
Aktualisiert:05.08.2026 20:09
Assigner (CNA):PostgreSQL
EUVD-ID:EUVD-2026-51563
Quellen: 🇪🇺 EUVD-Datenbank (ENISA) + 🇺🇸 NVD-Anreicherung · 24-h-Cache
CWE-94: Code Injection ✓ Offizieller Patch / Advisory verfügbar
💡 Gegenmaßnahme: Sicherheits-Update des Herstellers zeitnah einspielen und Netzwerksegmentierung prüfen.
🔴 Live Security Advisory & EPSS Exploit Radar

Zero-Day & Vulnerability Intelligence Hub

Echtzeit-Tracking mit EPSS Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeiten, Angriffsvektor-Decodern und KI-Patch-Anleitungen.

354k+ 🇪🇺 EUVD-Datenbank
0 🔴 Critical im Radar
0 ⚠️ CISA KEV
0 🔓 Aktiv ausgenutzt
1 🧪 PoC verfügbar
📊 Historien-Charts — Criticals-Trend · Vendors · EPSS-Verteilung
🔴 Criticals pro Monat (12 M) 2025-09: 186 2025-10: 316 2025-11: 257 2025-12: 426 2026-01: 431 2026-02: 418 2026-03: 652 2026-04: 574 2026-05: 683 2026-06: 942 2026-07: 1333 2026-08: 1329 7.547 Criticals gesamt
🏢 Top-Vendor-Veröffentlichungen (6 M) Adobe Apple Google Linux Microsoft Oracle Corporation
● Adobe ● Apple ● Google ● Linux ● Microsoft ● Oracle
📈 EPSS-Verteilung (Messungen)
Tier2026-08-292026-09-11
≥90 %40
≥50 %40
≥10 %30
<10 %304300
Datenquellen & Methodik: Primärquelle ist die EUVD der ENISA (laufender Datenbank-Sync, alle 15 Minuten), abgeglichen mit dem CISA-KEV-Katalog und der NVD — Detail-Dossiers reichern fehlende Felder live per NVD an — mit Fallback auf CIRCL vulnerability-lookup (EU/Non-Profit, aggregiert CVE-, GitHub- und OSV-Advisories). Der CISA-KEV-Katalog (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities, ~1.700 aktiv ausgenutzte Schwachstellen) wird bei jedem Sync vollständig neu geladen und kreuzreferenziert — filterbar über die KEV-Pille. CVSS 3.1 wird nach Ampel-Logik aus Verteidigersicht dekodiert; EPSS bezeichnet die 30-Tage-Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeit (FIRST.org).
🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD 🇺🇸 NVD ⚠️ CISA KEV ⚡ EPSS
Ökosystem & Hersteller Bedrohungs-Matrix:
pgadmin.org 1
Schweregrad & Status:
Hersteller (Datenbank-weit, 90.597 Einträge):
Quelle:
Schwachstellen-Kategorie (CWE):
🔍
5.3 MEDIUM
🇪🇺 EUVD
EPSS 22%
CVE-2026-17350 🌐 Netzwerk (Remote) 🔑 Geringe Nutzerrechte nötig
🧪 pgadmin.org

CVE-2026-17350 | The per-tool permission system (custom roles / role-based tool permissions, introduced in pgAdmin 4 9.3) did not enforce its permission check consistently. In SERVER mode, pgAdmin 4 gates each tool behind a per-tool Flask-Security permission, but the permission decorator (permissions_required) was applied only to a single "front door" route per tool. Every other backend route and Socket.IO handler in that tool's workflow relied solely on pga_login_required/so

The per-tool permission system (custom roles / role-based tool permissions, introduced in pgAdmin 4 9.3) did not enforce its permission check consistently. In SERVER mode, pgAdmin 4 gates each tool behind a per-tool Flask-Security permissio

CWE-94: Code Injection ✓ Offizieller Patch / Advisory verfügbar
💡 Gegenmaßnahme: Sicherheits-Update des Herstellers zeitnah einspielen und Netzwerksegmentierung prüfen.