VulnerabilityPublished 24 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-26198: collerek ormar · SQL Injection

Affects collerek ormarSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical : upgrade to 0.23.0 as a priority.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 63% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.23.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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: 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 24 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, 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 collerek ormar to 0.23.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
collerekormar	Affected >=0.9.9 <0.23.0	Fixed in 0.23.0
PyPIormar`pkg:pypi/ormar`Other threats	Affected <0.23.0 >=0.9.9	Fixed in 0.23.0

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should immediately upgrade Ormar to version 0.23.0 or later, where the issue is patched. Until upgrading, avoid using the min() and max() aggregate methods with user-supplied input. Implement strict input validation and sanitization on any parameters that influence database queries, especially those passed to aggregate functions. Employ parameterized queries and avoid constructing SQL statements with raw user input. Conduct a thorough code audit to identify any usage of vulnerable Ormar versions and review query construction patterns. Additionally, implement database access controls and least privilege principles to limit the damage potential if exploitation occurs. Monitor application logs for unusual query patterns indicative of injection attempts. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules targeting SQL injection payloads as an additional layer of defense. Finally, educate developers on secure coding practices related to ORM usage and SQL injection prevention.

Description

Ormar is a async mini ORM for Python. In versions 0.9.9 through 0.22.0, when performing aggregate queries, Ormar ORM constructs SQL expressions by passing user-supplied column names directly into `sqlalchemy.text()` without any validation or sanitization. The `min()` and `max()` methods in the `QuerySet` class accept arbitrary string input as the column parameter. While `sum()` and `avg()` are partially protected by an `is_numeric` type check that rejects non-existent fields, `min()` and `max()` skip this validation entirely. As a result, an attacker-controlled string is embedded as raw SQL inside the aggregate function call. Any unauthorized user can exploit this vulnerability to read the entire database contents, including tables unrelated to the queried model, by injecting a subquery as the column parameter. Version 0.23.0 contains a patch.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2026-26198 is severe for organizations using affected versions of Ormar in their Python applications. Exploitation allows attackers to perform unauthorized SQL injection attacks that can lead to full database disclosure, including sensitive information across unrelated tables. This compromises data confidentiality and can lead to data integrity issues if attackers modify queries or data. The vulnerability also threatens availability if attackers execute destructive SQL commands or cause database errors. Since the flaw requires no authentication or user interaction, any exposed application endpoint using vulnerable Ormar versions is at risk. Organizations handling sensitive or regulated data (e.g., personal, financial, healthcare) face significant compliance and reputational risks. The widespread use of Python and ORMs in web applications means many organizations globally could be affected, especially those using async Python stacks with Ormar. The absence of known exploits does not diminish the urgency due to the ease of exploitation and critical severity.

Summary

Ormar is an asynchronous Python ORM designed to simplify database interactions. In versions 0.9.9 through 0.22.0, a critical SQL injection vulnerability (CVE-2026-26198) exists in the implementation of aggregate query methods, specifically min() and max(). These methods accept a column name parameter as a string, which is directly passed into SQLAlchemy's text() function without any validation or sanitization. Unlike sum() and avg(), which perform partial type checks to ensure numeric fields, min() and max() skip these checks entirely. This design flaw enables an attacker to supply malicious SQL code as the column parameter, which is then embedded verbatim into the SQL query. Consequently, an unauthorized attacker can execute arbitrary SQL subqueries, allowing them to read data from any table in the database, not limited to the model being queried. The vulnerability requires no authentication or user interaction and can be exploited remotely if the application exposes the vulnerable query functionality. The flaw impacts confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data. The Ormar project addressed this issue in version 0.23.0 by implementing proper input validation and sanitization to prevent injection. No known exploits have been reported in the wild as of the publication date, but the critical CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8 reflects the high risk posed by this vulnerability.

CWE-89Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (SQL Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #2OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
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.
Architecture and Design · Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Query Parameterization (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Expanding Control over the Operating System from the Database (opens in a new tab)
SQL 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 4 Mar 2026, 01:54 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-89

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats