VulnerabilityPublished 11 May 2026

CVE-2026-7820: pgAdmin 4 · CWE-307

Affects pgAdmin 4Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 9.15 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.15

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: 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: 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 impacted component.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 May 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 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 pgadmin-org/pgadmin4 and pgAdmin 4 to 9.15.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
pgadmin.orgpgAdmin 4	Affected <9.15	Fixed in–
GitHubpgadmin-org/pgadmin4`pkg:github/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4`Other threats	Affected <9.15	Fixed in 9.15
GitHubpgAdmin 4`pkg:github/pgAdmin 4`Other threats	Affected <9.15	Fixed in 9.15

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

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, administrators should consider restricting access to the /login endpoint or implementing additional external rate limiting controls to mitigate brute-force attacks on INTERNAL accounts. Monitoring for unusual authentication activity targeting INTERNAL users may also help detect exploitation attempts.

Description

Improper restriction of excessive authentication attempts (CWE-307) in pgAdmin 4.pgAdmin enforces MAX_LOGIN_ATTEMPTS only inside its custom /authenticate/login view. Flask-Security's default /login view, which is registered automatically by security.init_app() and is reachable on every server, never consulted the User.locked field: pgAdmin's User model relied on Flask-Security's UserMixin.is_locked() (which always returns 'not locked') and Flask-Login's is_active (which only checks the active column, not locked). An attacker who triggered an account lockout via /authenticate/login could therefore obtain a session by re-submitting valid credentials directly to /login, defeating the brute-force-protection control for accounts using the INTERNAL authentication source. The same bypass also means that login attempts via /login are never rate-limited, so an attacker can perform an unbounded online password-guessing attack against INTERNAL accounts regardless of MAX_LOGIN_ATTEMPTS. Fix overrides User.is_active and User.is_locked() so the locked column is enforced on every authentication path. LDAP, OAuth2, Kerberos, and Webserver users are not reachable by this bypass because they have no local password and are rejected by Flask-Security's LoginForm.validate before the locked check; the lockout itself is also internal-only (the /authenticate/login view filters by auth_source=INTERNAL). This issue affects pgAdmin 4: before 9.15.

Impact

An attacker can bypass brute-force protection controls for INTERNAL authentication accounts by using the /login endpoint instead of /authenticate/login, allowing unlimited password guessing attempts. This could lead to unauthorized access to accounts with valid credentials. The impact is limited to INTERNAL authentication users; other authentication methods are not affected. There is no indication of denial of service or privilege escalation beyond account compromise.

Summary

pgAdmin 4 versions prior to 9.15 have an improper restriction of excessive authentication attempts (CWE-307) vulnerability. The application enforces MAX_LOGIN_ATTEMPTS only on its custom /authenticate/login endpoint, but the default Flask-Security /login endpoint does not check the User.locked field due to reliance on UserMixin.is_locked() which always returns 'not locked'. Consequently, attackers can bypass account lockout by submitting credentials directly to /login, enabling unlimited online password guessing attacks against INTERNAL authentication accounts. The fix involves overriding User.is_active and User.is_locked() to enforce the locked status on all authentication paths. External authentication methods are not affected because they do not use local passwords and are rejected before the locked check.

CWE-307Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame.
Architecture and Design
Common protection mechanisms include: Disconnecting the user after a small number of failed attempts; Implementing a timeout; Locking out a targeted account; Requiring a computational task on the user's part.
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
Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Dictionary-based Password Attack (opens in a new tab)
Password Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Password Spraying (opens in a new tab)
Credential Stuffing (opens in a new tab)
Use of Known Kerberos Credentials (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/issues/9904 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 May 2026, 15:52 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-307

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats