CVE-2026-119924VulnerabilityPublished 6 Nov 2026

Out-of-bounds Read

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-119924· High 8.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High · fixed in 6.0.2 : patch Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL with Babelfish soon.

Data as of 6 Nov 2026, 22:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (AMZN)	CVSS 3.1	8.1
CNA (AMZN)	CVSS 4.0	7.2

Patch: Available – fixed in 6.0.2, 5.4.2, 5.3.2 +21

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Nov 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 6 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-x57w-5w86-j4vx

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
AWSbabelfish-for-postgresql	Affected >=1.0 <=1.5 >=2.1 <=2.15 >=3.1 <=3.12 >=4.0 <=4.8 >=5.1 <=5.4	Fixed in–
AmazonAmazon Aurora PostgreSQL with Babelfish	Affected >=1.0.0 <1.5.5 >=1.6.0 <1.17.2 >=2.0.0 <2.3.5 >=2.4.0 <2.12.4 >=2.13.0 <2.13.3 >=2.14.0 <2.14.2 >=2.15.0 <2.15.2 >=2.16.0 <2.16.1 >=3.0.0 <3.8.4 >=3.9.0 <3.9.4 >=3.10.0 <3.10.3 >=3.11.0 <3.11.2 >=3.12.0 <3.12.2 >=3.13.0 <3.13.1 >=4.0.0 <4.5.5 >=4.6.0 <4.6.3 >=4.7.0 <4.7.2 >=4.8.0 <4.8.2 >=4.9.0 <4.9.1 >=5.0.0 <5.1.4 >=5.2.0 <5.2.3 >=5.3.0 <5.3.2 >=5.4.0 <5.4.2 >=6.0.0 <6.0.2 =5.5.0	Fixed in 6.0.2 5.4.2 5.3.2 5.2.3 5.1.4 4.9.1 4.8.2 4.7.2 4.6.3 4.5.5 3.13.1 3.12.2 3.11.2 3.10.3 3.9.4 3.8.4 2.16.1 2.15.2 2.14.2 2.13.3 2.12.4 2.3.5 1.17.2 1.5.5
GitHubbabelfish-for-postgresql/babelfish-for-postgresql`pkg:github/babelfish-for-postgresql/babelfish-for-postgresql`Other threats	Affected <1.5.5 >=1.6.0 <1.17.2 >=2.0.0 <2.3.5 >=2.4.0 <2.12.4 >=2.13.0 <2.13.3 >=2.14.0 <2.14.2 >=2.15.0 <2.15.2 >=2.16.0 <2.16.1 >=3.0.0 <3.8.4 >=3.9.0 <3.9.4 >=3.10.0 <3.10.3 >=3.11.0 <3.11.2 >=3.12.0 <3.12.2 >=3.13.0 <3.13.1 >=4.0.0 <4.5.5 >=4.6.0 <4.6.3 >=4.7.0 <4.7.2 >=4.8.0 <4.8.2 >=4.9.0 <4.9.1 >=5.0.0 <5.1.4 >=5.2.0 <5.2.3 >=5.3.0 <5.3.2 >=5.4.0 <5.4.2 >=6.0.0 <6.0.2 =5.5.0	Fixed in 1.5.5 1.17.2 2.3.5 2.12.4 2.13.3 2.14.2 2.15.2 2.16.1 3.8.4 3.9.4 3.10.3 3.11.2 3.12.2 3.13.1 4.5.5 4.6.3 4.7.2 4.8.2 4.9.1 5.1.4 5.2.3 5.3.2 5.4.2 6.0.2

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

A fix is available. Users should upgrade Babelfish for PostgreSQL extension to versions 4.10, 5.6, 6.1 or later. Customers using Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL with Babelfish should upgrade their clusters to one of the specified patched versions (e.g., 13.9.16 (1.5.5), 14.22.3 (2.16.1), 17.10.1 (5.6.0), 18.4.1 (6.1.0), or later) and apply any pending maintenance updates. As a temporary workaround, restrict network access to the TDS port (default 1433) to limit exposure.

Description

An out-of-bounds read vulnerability exists in the TDS RPC procedure-name parser of the Babelfish for PostgreSQL extension versions 1.0-1.5, 2.1-2.15, 3.1-3.12, 4.0-4.8, 5.1-5.4, and in Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL with Babelfish. This flaw may allow remote authenticated users to read adjacent process memory or cause a denial of service via a malformed TDS RPC request to the default TDS port 1433. Upgrades to fixed versions or restricting network access to the TDS port are recommended mitigations.

Impact

The vulnerability enables remote authenticated users to read adjacent process memory, potentially exposing sensitive information, or cause a denial of service by crashing the affected process. The confidentiality impact is high, and availability impact is also high due to possible service disruption. Integrity impact is not affected. Exploitation requires authentication and network access to the TDS port.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Nov 2026, 22:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats