Medium Authentication

CVE-2026-7820 — pgAdmin 4: Account-lockout bypass via Flask-Security default /login view

Improper restriction of excessive authentication attempts (CWE-307) in pgAdmin 4. pgAdmin enforces MAX_LOGIN_ATTEMPTS only inside its custom /authenticate/login view. Flask-Security's default /login view, which is registered automatically by security.init_app() and is reachable on every server, never consulted the User.locked field: pgAdmin's User model relied on Flask-Security's UserMixin.is_locked() (which always returns 'not locked') and Flask-Login's is_active (which only checks the active column, not locked). An attacker who triggered an account lockout via /authenticate/login could therefore obtain a session by re-submitting valid credentials directly to /login, defeating the brute-force-protection control for accounts using the INTERNAL authentication source. The same bypass also means that login attempts via /login are never rate-limited, so an attacker can perform an unbounded online password-guessing attack against INTERNAL accounts regardless of MAX_LOGIN_ATTEMPTS. Fix overrides User.is_active and User.is_locked() so the locked column is enforced on every authentication path. LDAP, OAuth2, Kerberos, and Webserver users are not reachable by this bypass because they have no local password and are rejected by Flask-Security's LoginForm.validate before the locked check; the lockout itself is also internal-only (the /authenticate/login view filters by auth_source=INTERNAL). This issue affects pgAdmin 4: before 9.15.

Published May 11, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: PostgreSQL

Low

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 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+4
Technical severity (medium)+3
Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+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

0.33%

ahead of 24% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026

Affects

Pgadmin

Pgadmin 4 and 1 more

CVSS base

6.5

Medium · 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

Yes

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)

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.

Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Pgadmin Pgadmin 4, Pgadmin.org pgAdmin 4).
The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (authentication), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status	Source
Pgadmin	Pgadmin 4	< 9.15	Vulnerable	NIST National Vulnerability Database
Pgadmin.org	pgAdmin 4	< 9.15	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

None

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.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Scored by
6.9	CVSS 4.0	Medium	—	—	f86ef6dc-4d3a-42ad-8f28-e6d5547a5007 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.9	CVSS 4.0	Medium	—	—	PostgreSQL via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
6.5	CVSS 3.1	Medium	3.9	2.5	f86ef6dc-4d3a-42ad-8f28-e6d5547a5007 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.5	CVSS 3.1	Medium	—	—	PostgreSQL via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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-307 · Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 15, 2026 · 3 reading(s) · max 0.33%

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).
Review authentication logs: logins without MFA, anomalous sessions and recently created accounts.

web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSauthentication logs

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 · 6.5
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
May 11, 2026 · PostgreSQL

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

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

References

1 on the record

github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/issues/9904
Issue Tracking, Patch, Vendor Advisory, issue-tracking, NIST National Vulnerability Database

Elsewhere on this site

Pgadmin
every CVE for this vendor

Authentication
same class

CWE-307
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

High CVE-2026-86864 pgAdmin 4: Argument and connection-string injection via the database field in the Backup tool 28d
Medium CVE-2026-86861 pgAdmin 4: File Manager save_file writes through a symbolic link planted after the containment check 28d
Medium CVE-2026-86862 pgAdmin 4: Connection-string injection via the database field in the Restore and Maintenance tools 28d
Critical CVE-2026-86863 pgAdmin 4: Authentication bypass via a client-controlled identity header in Webserver authentication mode 28d
Critical 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
Medium 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-2026-7820 is "pgAdmin 4: Account-lockout bypass via Flask-Security default /login view", 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 6.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.33% 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.