VulnerabilityPublished 20 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32954: frappe erpnext · SQL Injection

Affects frappe erpnextSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 16.8.0 or 15.100.0 soon.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 20:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 16.8.0, 15.100.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 20 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 31 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 erpnext and frappe/erpnext to 16.8.0 or 15.100.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
frappeerpnext	Affected >=16.0.0-beta.1 <16.8.0	Fixed in 16.8.0
frappeerpnext	Affected <15.100.0	Fixed in 15.100.0
GitHubfrappe/erpnext`pkg:github/frappe/erpnext`Other threats	Affected <15.100.0 <16.8.0	Fixed in 15.100.0 16.8.0

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-32954, organizations should immediately upgrade ERPNext installations to versions 16.8.0 or 15.100.0 or later, where the vulnerability has been patched. In addition to patching, organizations should implement strict input validation and sanitization on all user-supplied data, especially on endpoints that interact with the database. Employing web application firewalls (WAFs) with SQL injection detection rules can provide an additional layer of defense against exploitation attempts. Regularly audit and monitor database query logs for unusual patterns indicative of blind SQL injection attempts, such as repeated time delays or boolean-based probing. Restrict database user privileges to the minimum necessary to limit the potential impact of injection attacks. Finally, conduct security awareness training for developers and administrators to ensure secure coding practices and timely application of security updates.

Description

ERP is a free and open source Enterprise Resource Planning tool. In versions prior to 16.8.0 and 15.100.0, certain endpoints were vulnerable to time-based and boolean-based blind SQL injection due to insufficient parameter validation, allowing attackers to infer database information. This issue has been fixed in versions 15.100.0 and 16.8.0.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-32954 is the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive database information due to blind SQL injection attacks. Organizations running vulnerable versions of ERPNext risk exposure of confidential business data, including financial records, customer information, and internal operational data. Although the vulnerability does not allow direct modification or deletion of data, the confidentiality breach can facilitate further attacks such as privilege escalation, data exfiltration, or social engineering. The attack requires only low privileges and no user interaction, increasing the likelihood of exploitation in exposed environments. The availability impact is low, but the loss of confidentiality can severely damage organizational reputation, compliance posture, and operational security. Given ERPNext’s use in diverse industries worldwide, the vulnerability could affect a broad range of sectors including manufacturing, retail, healthcare, and education.

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 20 Mar 2026, 05:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-89

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats