VulnerabilityPublished 24 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-23984: Apache Superset · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Apache SupersetSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 6.0.0 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 Feb 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 29 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 Apache Superset and apache-superset to 6.0.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache Superset	Affected <6.0.0	Fixed in 6.0.0
PyPIapache-superset`pkg:pypi/apache-superset`Other threats	Affected <6.0.0	Fixed in 6.0.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Apache Superset to version 6.0.0 or later immediately, as this version contains the fix for the authorization bypass issue.
Review and restrict SQLLab access permissions to only trusted users, minimizing the number of users who can exploit this vulnerability.
Implement strong authentication and monitoring for Superset users, including multi-factor authentication and logging of SQLLab activities to detect suspicious DML attempts.
Conduct regular audits of database changes originating from Superset to identify unauthorized modifications promptly.
If upgrading is temporarily not possible, consider disabling SQLLab or restricting PostgreSQL connections to trusted users only, or enforce database-level read-only roles as an additional control.
Educate users about the risks of executing arbitrary SQL commands and enforce least privilege principles.
Monitor Apache Superset and PostgreSQL logs for anomalous SQL statements that could indicate exploitation attempts.

Description

An Improper Input Validation vulnerability exists in Apache Superset that allows an authenticated user with SQLLab access to bypass the read-only verification check when using a PostgreSQL database connection. While the system effectively blocks standard Data Manipulation Language (DML) statements (e.g., INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE) on read-only connections, it fails to detect them in specially crafted SQL statements. This issue affects Apache Superset: before 6.0.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 6.0.0, which fixes the issue.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-23984 is unauthorized modification of data in PostgreSQL databases accessed via Apache Superset’s SQLLab interface. This can lead to data integrity breaches, potentially corrupting critical business data, analytics results, and decision-making processes. Organizations relying on Superset for business intelligence, reporting, or data exploration may face inaccurate insights or compromised datasets. Since the vulnerability requires authenticated access with SQLLab privileges, insider threats or compromised user accounts pose significant risks. The ability to bypass read-only restrictions increases the attack surface, enabling malicious actors to perform unauthorized inserts, updates, or deletions. This could disrupt operations, cause compliance violations, or damage organizational reputation. Although availability and confidentiality impacts are limited, the integrity impact is high. The vulnerability affects all organizations using vulnerable Superset versions with PostgreSQL backends, especially those with multiple users granted SQLLab access. Without timely patching, attackers could exploit this flaw to manipulate data undetected.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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)
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 4 Mar 2026, 01:59 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats