CVE-2026-25892VulnerabilityPublished 9 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-25892: vrana adminer · Improper Input Validation

Affects vrana adminerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · public detection template (Nuclei) · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 5.4.2 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 1.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 77% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.4.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 9 Feb 2026
Detectable: evidence found.
nuclei template: Adminer 4.6.2 - 5.4.1 Unauthenticated Persistent DoS
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 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 vrana adminer to 5.4.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
vranaadminer	Affected >=4.6.2 <5.4.2	Fixed in 5.4.2

AI-suggested

1. Immediate upgrade to Adminer version 5.4.2 or later, which contains the patch for this vulnerability. 2. If upgrading is not immediately possible, implement network-level controls such as web application firewalls (WAFs) to restrict access to the ?script=version endpoint, allowing only trusted origins or IP addresses. 3. Monitor web server logs for unusual POST requests to the ?script=version endpoint, particularly those containing the version[] parameter, to detect potential exploitation attempts. 4. Employ strict Content Security Policy (CSP) headers and CORS policies to limit cross-origin requests to Adminer interfaces. 5. Isolate Adminer instances behind VPNs or internal networks to reduce exposure to external attackers. 6. Regularly audit and update all database management tools and related software to ensure timely application of security patches. 7. Educate IT and security teams about this specific vulnerability and the importance of validating input origins in web applications.

Description

CVE-2026-25892 is a high-severity vulnerability in Adminer versions 4.6.2 up to 5.4.1, caused by improper input validation in the version check mechanism. The vulnerability arises because the ? script=version endpoint accepts POST requests from any origin without validating the source, allowing an attacker to send a crafted version[] parameter. This parameter is converted by PHP into an array instead of a string, causing openssl_verify() to throw a TypeError and resulting in an HTTP 500 error that disrupts service for all users. No authentication or user interaction is required to exploit this remotely over the network. The impact is a denial-of-service condition affecting availability.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-25892 is a denial-of-service condition that disrupts the availability of the Adminer database management interface. For European organizations relying on Adminer for database administration, this could result in temporary loss of access to critical database management functions, delaying maintenance, backups, or emergency interventions. This disruption could affect operational continuity, especially in sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure where database availability is crucial. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality or integrity, the inability to manage databases effectively could indirectly increase risk exposure. Additionally, the ease of exploitation without authentication or user interaction means attackers can launch DoS attacks at scale, potentially targeting multiple organizations or critical service providers simultaneously. This could lead to cascading effects in interconnected systems and services. The lack of known exploits in the wild suggests limited current impact, but the vulnerability’s characteristics warrant proactive mitigation to prevent future attacks.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (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
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (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 17 Feb 2026, 09:50 UTC

Public exploits and detectiona Nuclei detection template

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats