VulnerabilityPublished 21 Mar 2026Updated 23 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-4513: vanna · SQL Injection

Affects vannaSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

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

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 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.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 1 Nov 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
vanna-aivanna	Affected =2.0.0 =2.0.1 =2.0.2	Fixed in–
PyPIvanna-ai/vanna`pkg:pypi/vanna-ai/vanna`Other threats	Affected =2.0.0 =2.0.1 =2.0.2	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Until an official patch is released by vanna-ai, organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Apply strict input validation and sanitization on all inputs to the 'ask' function or any interface interacting with it, using allowlists and rejecting suspicious characters or patterns. 2) Refactor or override the vulnerable function to use parameterized queries or prepared statements to prevent direct SQL injection. 3) Restrict network access to the vanna-ai vanna service by implementing firewall rules or network segmentation to limit exposure to trusted users and systems only. 4) Monitor logs and database queries for unusual or suspicious activity indicative of injection attempts. 5) Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules targeting SQL injection patterns specific to this vulnerability. 6) Conduct thorough code reviews and penetration testing focused on SQL injection vectors within the application. 7) Prepare an incident response plan in case exploitation is detected. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific vulnerable function and the current lack of vendor remediation.

Description

A vulnerability was detected in vanna-ai vanna up to 2.0.2. Affected by this vulnerability is the function ask of the file vanna\legacy\base\base.py. Performing a manipulation results in sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The SQL injection vulnerability in vanna-ai vanna can have significant impacts on organizations using the affected versions. Exploitation can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data stored in backend databases, including intellectual property, user information, or operational data. Attackers may also alter or delete data, undermining data integrity and potentially causing operational disruptions. The ability to execute arbitrary SQL commands remotely without authentication increases the risk of widespread compromise, especially in environments where vanna-ai vanna is exposed to untrusted networks. This can lead to data breaches, regulatory non-compliance, reputational damage, and financial losses. Additionally, attackers could leverage this vulnerability as a foothold for further network intrusion or lateral movement. The absence of vendor patches and the public availability of exploit code elevate the urgency of addressing this threat. Organizations relying on vanna-ai vanna for AI or data processing tasks are particularly vulnerable, as compromise could affect critical business functions.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Mar 2026, 21:38 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats