VulnerabilityPublished 19 Jun 2026Updated 22 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-48772: sysown proxysql · Use of Less Trusted Source

Affects sysown proxysqlSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 10.0 Critical : upgrade to 3.0.9 as a priority.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

10.0Critical

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.0.9

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Jun 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 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

Upgrade sysown proxysql to 3.0.9.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
sysownproxysql	Affected >=2.0.0 <3.0.9	Fixed in 3.0.9
GitHubsysown/proxysql`pkg:github/sysown/proxysql`Other threats	Affected >=2.0.0 <=3.0.8	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade ProxySQL to version 3.0.9 or later, where this vulnerability is patched. Until upgrading, consider restricting access to the ProxySQL frontend port to trusted networks and disabling or carefully configuring the mysql-proxy_protocol_networks setting to limit which peers can send PROXY protocol frames. Patch status is not explicitly confirmed in the advisory, but version 3.0.9 is stated as the fix version.

Description

ProxySQL is a proxy for MySQL and its forks, as well as PostgreSQL. In versions 2.0.0 through 3.0.8, the ProxySQL MySQL frontend accepts the `PROXY UNKNOWN <addr> <addr> <port> <port>\r\n` PP1 frame as a well-formed PROXY protocol header. The HAProxy PROXY protocol v1 specification says that when the protocol token is `UNKNOWN`, the receiver MUST ignore any address fields that follow it, because the proxy has declared it cannot determine the client identity. ProxySQL parses those address fields anyway via `sscanf` and writes the spoofed source address into the session's `addr.addr` field. From there it flows directly into the query-rule matcher, where the `client_addr` predicate decides routing and ACL. When `mysql-proxy_protocol_networks = '*'` (the default), any TCP peer can send a PP1 frame and choose any source IP claim. With that, any `mysql_query_rules` row pinned to a `client_addr` value is forgeable: the attacker writes the address they want to match into the PP1 line, and ProxySQL routes their query as if it came from that address. In practice this is a routing and ACL bypass. Real deployments use `client_addr` for read-write splitting (internal apps go to the primary, public traffic to read replicas), per-app schema pinning, and query-filter rules (DDL allowed only from admin CIDR, public queries blocked from dangerous patterns). An attacker that can reach the frontend port can forge their way into any of those routes. Version 3.0.9 patches this issue.

Impact

An attacker with network access to the ProxySQL frontend port can spoof source IP addresses in the PROXY protocol header to bypass routing and access control rules based on client IP. This can lead to unauthorized query routing, including bypassing read-write splitting, schema pinning, and query filtering policies, potentially allowing unauthorized data access or modification. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 10.0, indicating critical impact on confidentiality and integrity without requiring privileges or user interaction.

Summary

ProxySQL's MySQL frontend accepts the PROXY protocol v1 frame with the UNKNOWN token as valid and parses the subsequent address fields despite the protocol specification requiring these to be ignored. This parsing flaw allows an attacker to forge the source IP address in the session's address field, which is used by query-rule matchers for routing and ACL decisions. When the default configuration allows any TCP peer to send such frames, attackers can manipulate routing and access control policies that depend on client_addr, effectively bypassing intended restrictions. The issue affects versions 2.0.0 through 3.0.8 and is fixed in version 3.0.9.

CWE-348Use of Less Trusted Source (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product has two different sources of the same data or information, but it uses the source that has less support for verification, is less trusted, or is less resistant to attack.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
DNS Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
User-Controlled Filename (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
AJAX Footprinting (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 26 Jun 2026, 21:50 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-348, CWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats