VulnerabilityPublished 24 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-46183: pgcodekeeper · Deserialization of Untrusted Data

Affects pgcodekeeperSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 Oct 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 Oct 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubhacktimepro/pgcodekeeper`pkg:github/hacktimepro/pgcodekeeper`Other threats	Affected =10.12.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their use of pgCodeKeeper to identify deployments of version 10.12.0 or earlier. Until an official patch is released, avoid processing serialized .ser files from untrusted or unauthenticated sources. Implement network-level controls such as firewall rules and intrusion detection systems to monitor and restrict access to services handling pgCodeKeeper operations. Employ application-layer input validation and sandboxing techniques to limit the impact of deserialization. Consider disabling or restricting the use of the Utils.deserialize function if feasible. Maintain strict access controls and monitor logs for unusual deserialization activity or errors indicative of exploitation attempts. Engage with pgCodeKeeper developers or vendors to obtain timely patches and security updates. Additionally, conduct security awareness training for developers and administrators about the risks of unsafe deserialization and secure coding practices. Finally, integrate this vulnerability into incident response plans to ensure rapid containment if exploitation is detected.

Description

The Utils.deserialize function in pgCodeKeeper 10.12.0 processes serialized data from untrusted sources. If an attacker provides a specially crafted .ser file, deserialization may result in unintended code execution or other malicious behavior on the target system.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of database management systems that utilize pgCodeKeeper 10.12.0. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code remotely, potentially leading to unauthorized data access, modification, or further lateral movement within the network. Given pgCodeKeeper's role in database schema version control, compromise could disrupt development workflows, introduce malicious schema changes, or leak sensitive database structure information. The lack of required authentication and user interaction increases the attack surface, making automated exploitation feasible. This risk is particularly acute for organizations in sectors with stringent data protection requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and government, where database integrity and confidentiality are paramount. Additionally, the absence of known exploits in the wild suggests a window of opportunity for proactive mitigation before widespread attacks occur. Failure to address this vulnerability could result in regulatory penalties under GDPR if personal data is compromised, reputational damage, and operational disruptions.

CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #15OWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Object Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/hacktimepro/vulnerabilities/blob/main/Disclosure_CVE-2025-46183_pgcodekeeper.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 31 Oct 2025, 14:20 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-502

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats