CVE Intelligence
Medium Access control

CVE-2026-17350 — pgAdmin 4: Tool permission bypass via backend routes and Socket.IO handlers

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.

Published Jul 31, 2026 · Updated Oct 23, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, GitHub Security Advisories · 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 0.4% (30-day exploitation probability)+5
  • Technical severity (medium)+3

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
0.38%
ahead of 32% of scored CVEs · Oct 30, 2026
Affects
Pgadmin
Pgadmin 4 and 1 more
CVSS base
5.4
Medium · 3 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
Partial
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)
  • 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 (access control), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Pgadmin Pgadmin 4 ≥ 9.3 and < 9.17 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Pgadmin.org pgAdmin 4 ≥ 9.3 and < 9.17 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
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
5.3 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — f86ef6dc-4d3a-42ad-8f28-e6d5547a5007 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.3 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — PostgreSQL via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
5.4 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.8 2.5 f86ef6dc-4d3a-42ad-8f28-e6d5547a5007 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.4 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories
5.4 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — PostgreSQL via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: f86ef6dc-4d3a-42ad-8f28-e6d5547a5007)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-862 · Missing Authorization

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 15, 2026 → Oct 30, 2026 · 15 reading(s) · max 0.38%

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).
  • Audit administrative actions and access to resources outside each user’s normal pattern.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSauthentication logsapplication logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · pgadmin.org/pgadmin 4
    Oct 16, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 16, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 5.4
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Analyzed
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Jul 31, 2026 · PostgreSQL

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× References added · Oct 23, 2026 – Oct 23, 2026
  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

7 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Pgadmin
every CVE for this vendor
Access control
same class
CWE-862
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • Medium CVE-2026-116251 pgAdmin 4: A user's other sessions survive a change of their password 23h
  • High CVE-2026-116249 pgAdmin 4: Connection file paths and parameter keys escape the user's storage directory 23h
  • Medium CVE-2026-116250 pgAdmin 4: Files opened in a storage directory follow a symbolic link, hard link or FIFO planted after the containment check 23h
  • Medium CVE-2026-116252 pgAdmin 4: Materialized view refresh redirects its connection through a crafted database name 23h
  • High CVE-2026-116245 pgAdmin 4: Connection services are not restricted in server mode 23h
  • Medium CVE-2026-116248 pgAdmin 4: Non-administrators can share a server with every user 23h

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-2026-17350 is "pgAdmin 4: Tool permission bypass via backend routes and Socket.IO handlers", rated Medium. It affects Pgadmin 4 (Pgadmin); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 5.4 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.38% 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.