VulnerabilityPublished 18 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32611: nicolargo glances · SQL Injection

Affects nicolargo glancesSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.0 High : upgrade to 4.5.2 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.0High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.5.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 18 Mar 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 glances and nicolargo/glances to 4.5.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
nicolargoglances	Affected <4.5.2	Fixed in 4.5.2
GitHubnicolargo/glances`pkg:github/nicolargo/glances`Other threats	Affected <4.5.2	Fixed in 4.5.2

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 upgrade Glances to version 4.5.3 or later, where the DuckDB export module has been fixed to properly parameterize and escape SQL identifiers. Until upgrade is possible, administrators should restrict network access to the Glances monitoring service, ensuring it is not exposed to untrusted networks or users. Implement network segmentation and firewall rules to limit access to the monitoring endpoints. Review and sanitize any custom monitoring statistics or naming conventions that could be manipulated to inject SQL code. Additionally, monitor logs for unusual SQL errors or suspicious activity related to the DuckDB export functionality. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or database activity monitoring (DAM) tools to detect and block anomalous SQL queries. Finally, consider disabling the DuckDB export module if it is not essential to reduce the attack surface.

Description

Glances is an open-source system cross-platform monitoring tool. The GHSA-x46r fix (commit 39161f0) addressed SQL injection in the TimescaleDB export module by converting all SQL operations to use parameterized queries and `psycopg.sql` composable objects. However, the DuckDB export module (`glances/exports/glances_duckdb/__init__.py`) was not included in this fix and contains the same class of vulnerability: table names and column names derived from monitoring statistics are directly interpolated into SQL statements via f-strings. While DuckDB INSERT values already use parameterized queries (`?` placeholders), the DDL construction and table name references do not escape or parameterize identifier names. Version 4.5.3 provides a more complete fix.

Impact

The SQL injection vulnerability in Glances' DuckDB export module can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive system monitoring data, which may include performance metrics, system configurations, or other operational details. Although the integrity and availability impacts are rated low, attackers could manipulate or corrupt monitoring data, potentially misleading system administrators or automated systems relying on this data. Organizations using Glances with DuckDB export in vulnerable versions risk exposure of internal system information, which could be leveraged for further attacks or reconnaissance. Since Glances is used globally across various industries for system monitoring, the vulnerability poses a significant risk to enterprises, cloud providers, and managed service providers that integrate DuckDB for data export. The network-exploitable nature without authentication increases the threat surface, especially in environments where monitoring tools are exposed or accessible remotely. The absence of known exploits suggests limited active exploitation but does not diminish the urgency for remediation given the ease of exploitation and potential data confidentiality impact.

Summary

Glances is a widely used open-source cross-platform system monitoring tool that supports exporting monitoring data to various databases, including TimescaleDB and DuckDB. CVE-2026-32611 identifies an SQL injection vulnerability in the DuckDB export module of Glances versions prior to 4.5.2. The root cause lies in the unsafe construction of SQL Data Definition Language (DDL) statements and table/column identifiers using Python f-strings, which directly interpolate monitoring statistics-derived names without proper escaping or parameterization. While the actual data insertion queries use parameterized placeholders, the identifiers in the SQL statements are not sanitized, allowing an attacker to inject malicious SQL code by manipulating these names. This vulnerability is classified under CWE-89 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command). The issue was partially addressed in the TimescaleDB export module by converting all SQL operations to parameterized queries and composable objects, but the DuckDB module was overlooked until version 4.5.3. The vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.0, with network attack vector, high attack complexity, no privileges required, no user interaction, unchanged scope, high confidentiality impact, low integrity impact, and low availability impact. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. The flaw could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands, potentially exposing sensitive monitoring data or causing limited disruption to the monitoring database.

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 18 Mar 2026, 17:43 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-89

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats