CVE-2026-1707VulnerabilityPublished 5 Feb 2026Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-1707: pgAdmin 4 · Vulnerability

Affects pgAdmin 4Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 38% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: 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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 Feb 2026
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 2026-10-25.

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 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
pgadmin.orgpgAdmin 4	Affected =9.11	Fixed in–
GitHubpgadmin-org/pgadmin4`pkg:github/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4`Other threats	Affected =9.11	Fixed in–
GitHubpgAdmin 4`pkg:github/pgAdmin 4`Other threats	Affected =9.11	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately review access controls to the pgAdmin web interface to restrict access to trusted users only. Network-level protections such as VPNs or IP whitelisting should be enforced to limit exposure. Since no patches are currently linked, consider temporarily disabling restore operations from PLAIN-format dump files or restricting restore functionality to highly trusted administrators. Monitor restore operations closely for suspicious activity or unexpected command executions. Employ host-based intrusion detection systems to detect anomalous commands or process behavior during restore operations. Segregate the pgAdmin server from critical production systems to limit potential impact. Stay alert for official patches or updates from pgadmin.org and apply them promptly once available. Additionally, consider upgrading to later versions of pgAdmin once the vulnerability is addressed. Implement strong authentication and session management to prevent unauthorized access to the web interface.

Description

pgAdmin versions 9.11 are affected by a Restore restriction bypass via key disclosure vulnerability that occurs when running in server mode and performing restores from PLAIN-format dump files. An attacker with access to the pgAdmin web interface can observe an active restore operation, extract the `\restrict` key in real time, and race the restore process by overwriting the restore script with a payload that re-enables meta-commands using `\unrestrict <key>`. This results in reliable command execution on the pgAdmin host during the restore operation.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an authenticated attacker with access to the pgAdmin web interface to execute arbitrary commands on the host system during a database restore operation. This can lead to full compromise of the pgAdmin server, including unauthorized data access, modification, or deletion, and potential lateral movement within the network. The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the database and host system are at risk. Since pgAdmin is widely used for PostgreSQL database management, exploitation could disrupt critical database operations and lead to data breaches or service outages. The requirement for authenticated access limits the attack surface but does not eliminate significant risk, especially in environments where multiple users have access or where the web interface is exposed to untrusted networks. The race condition aspect may require some timing skill but is considered low complexity. Overall, this vulnerability could have severe operational and security impacts on organizations relying on pgAdmin 4 for database administration.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/issues/9518 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 23:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats