VulnerabilityPublished 30 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-116248: pgAdmin 4 · Missing Authorization

Affects pgAdmin 4Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 9.19 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 20:18 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (PostgreSQL)	CVSS 3.1	6.8
CNA (PostgreSQL)	CVSS 4.0	6.0

Patch: Available – fixed in 9.19

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: 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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Oct 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 30 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.
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.

What to do

Upgrade pgAdmin 4 to 9.19.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
pgadmin.orgpgAdmin 4	Affected <9.19	Fixed in 9.19
GitHubpgAdmin 4`pkg:github/pgAdmin 4`Other threats	Affected <9.19	Fixed in 9.19

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade pgAdmin 4 to version 9.19 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. The fix enforces authorization by refusing non-administrator requests to share servers with an HTTP 403 response, prunes unauthorized shared entries during servers.json import before validation, and warns administrators about previously shared servers created by non-administrators. No additional mitigation is required once the upgrade is applied.

Description

CVE-2026-116248 is a missing authorization vulnerability in pgAdmin 4 server mode prior to version 9.19. It allows non-administrative users to create or import shared servers that appear trusted to other users, potentially tricking them into connecting to attacker-controlled hosts and exposing their database credentials. The vulnerability arises because the server API improperly accepts and stores the 'shared' flag from non-administrators, and the servers.json import only removes unauthorized shared entries after validation. The issue is fixed in pgAdmin 4 version 9.19 by rejecting unauthorized share requests and pruning shared entries from imports before validation.

Impact

This vulnerability allows non-administrative users to create shared servers visible to all users, which can be named to appear trusted but point to attacker-controlled hosts. While no direct credential access is granted, users connecting to these shared servers may unknowingly send their database passwords to the attacker. This can lead to credential exposure and potential unauthorized access to database systems.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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 30 Oct 2026, 20:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats