CVE Intelligence
High Injection

CVE-2026-12044 — pgAdmin 4: SQL injection in COMMENT ON ... IS '<description>' rendering across dialog templates

SQL injection in pgAdmin 4 across every dialog template that renders ``COMMENT ON ... IS '<description>'`` for a user-supplied description field. The Jinja templates for Domains (and their constraints), Foreign Tables, Languages, and Event Triggers, plus the Views OID-lookup query, interpolated the description directly inside a single-quoted SQL literal -- ``'{{ data.description }}'`` -- instead of passing it through the ``qtLiteral`` escape filter. An authenticated pgAdmin user with permission to create or alter the affected object types could submit a description containing an apostrophe, break out of the literal and chain arbitrary SQL. The injected SQL runs under the PostgreSQL role the user is already authenticated as; for a connected role with ``COPY ... TO/FROM PROGRAM`` (typically PostgreSQL superuser), this chains to OS command execution on the PostgreSQL host. The defect does not cross a privilege boundary -- the user already has direct SQL access to that role through pgAdmin's Query Tool -- so the attacker gains no capability beyond what their database role already grants. The marginal impact captures bypass of any application-layer Query Tool gating an operator may have configured. The defect was originally reported against the Domain Dialog ``description`` field; a code-wide audit identified sixteen sites of the same pattern across the templates listed above. The same review also surfaced ten related sinks in the pgstattuple/pgstatindex stats templates -- ``pgstattuple('{{schema}}.{{table}}')`` and the matching pgstatindex shape -- where ``qtIdent`` escapes embedded double quotes inside the identifier but not apostrophes, so a user with CREATE privilege on a schema could plant a table or index named ``foo'bar`` and a later stats viewer would render an unbalanced literal. Fix is layered: 1. Sites: replace every ``'{{ x.description }}'`` with ``{{ x.description|qtLiteral(conn) }}`` (no surrounding quotes -- the filter wraps the value in escaped quotes itself). Plumb ``conn=self.conn`` through every ``render_template`` call that loads one of these templates. Also corrects a ``{ % elif`` Jinja typo in the foreign-table schema diff (dead branch). Rewrite the ten pgstattuple/pgstatindex stats sites to address the relation via OID + ``::oid::regclass`` cast (e.g. ``pgstattuple({{ tid }}::oid::regclass)``), eliminating the embedded literal-call form entirely so that bug-class can no longer recur there. 2. Driver hardening: ``qtLiteral`` (in ``utils/driver/psycopg3/__init__.py``) used to silently return the raw unescaped value when its ``conn`` argument was falsy. It now raises ``ValueError`` -- surfacing the entire bug class going forward. The change immediately uncovered eight latent plumbing bugs (in ``schemas/__init__.py``, ``schemas/functions/__init__.py``, ``schemas/tables/utils.py``, ``foreign_servers/__init__.py``, and seven sites in ``roles/__init__.py``) -- all fixed as part of this patch. The inner ``except`` block that swallowed adapter-level failures and returned the raw value is also removed, so unadaptable inputs raise instead of leaking unescaped values. 3. Regression tests: a per-template behavioural test renders each previously-vulnerable template with an apostrophe-injection payload and asserts the escaped fragment is present and the vulnerable fragment absent; a lint test walks every ``*.sql`` template flagging any ``'{{ ... }}'`` single-quote-wrapped interpolation against an explicit allowlist; unit tests cover the new qtLiteral fail-fast and inner-except raise paths. This issue affects pgAdmin 4: from 1.0 before 9.16.

Published Jun 18, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: PostgreSQL

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.7% (30-day exploitation probability)+8
  • Technical severity (high)+6

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.71%
ahead of 53% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Pgadmin
Pgadmin 4 and 1 more
CVSS base
8.8
High · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Pgadmin Pgadmin 4, Pgadmin.org pgAdmin 4).
  2. Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
  3. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (injection), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Pgadmin Pgadmin 4 ≥ 1.0 and < 9.16 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Pgadmin.org pgAdmin 4 ≥ 1.0 and < 9.16 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
8.7 CVSS 4.0 High — — f86ef6dc-4d3a-42ad-8f28-e6d5547a5007 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.7 CVSS 4.0 High — — PostgreSQL via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
8.8 CVSS 3.1 High 2.8 5.9 f86ef6dc-4d3a-42ad-8f28-e6d5547a5007 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.8 CVSS 3.1 High — — PostgreSQL via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: f86ef6dc-4d3a-42ad-8f28-e6d5547a5007)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-89 · SQL Injection

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 15, 2026 · 3 reading(s) · max 0.71%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSapplication logsendpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · pgadmin.org/pgadmin 4
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 8.8
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Analyzed
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Jun 18, 2026 · PostgreSQL

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Pgadmin
every CVE for this vendor
Injection
same class
CWE-89
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-86864 pgAdmin 4: Argument and connection-string injection via the database field in the Backup tool 28d
  • CVE-2026-86861 pgAdmin 4: File Manager save_file writes through a symbolic link planted after the containment check 28d
  • CVE-2026-86862 pgAdmin 4: Connection-string injection via the database field in the Restore and Maintenance tools 28d
  • CVE-2026-86863 pgAdmin 4: Authentication bypass via a client-controlled identity header in Webserver authentication mode 28d
  • CVE-2026-17566 pgAdmin 4: RCE via backslash-escape mismatch in Import/Export Data query guard (incomplete defense, sibling gap to CVE-2025-13780) Jul 31, 2026
  • CVE-2026-17348 pgAdmin 4: Missing authentication decorator on Constraints, preferences, Debugger and Schema Diff routes allows unauthenticated access in SERVER mode (incomplete fix for CVE-2026-12046) Jul 31, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-12044 is "pgAdmin 4: SQL injection in COMMENT ON ... IS '<description>' rendering across dialog templates", rated High. It affects Pgadmin 4 (Pgadmin); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 8.8 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.71% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.