CVE-2026-41490VulnerabilityPublished 18 Apr 2026Updated 8 May 2026

Dagster duckdb: Dagster Vulnerable to SQL Injection via Dynamic Partition Keys in Database I/O Manager Integrations

Affects dagster-duckdbSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-41490· High 8.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.3 High : upgrade to 0.29.1 soon.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 00:07 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.3High

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 0.29.1, 1.13.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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 7 May 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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 dagster-duckdb and dagster-snowflake and dagster-gcp and dagster-deltalake and dagster-snowflake-polars to 0.29.1; dagster to 1.13.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIdagster-duckdb	Affected <0.29.1	Fixed in 0.29.1
PyPIdagster-snowflake	Affected <0.29.1	Fixed in 0.29.1
PyPIdagster-gcp	Affected <0.29.1	Fixed in 0.29.1
PyPIdagster	Affected <1.13.1	Fixed in 1.13.1
PyPIdagster-deltalake	Affected <0.29.1	Fixed in 0.29.1
PyPIdagster-snowflake-polars	Affected <0.29.1	Fixed in 0.29.1

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

Description

### Summary The DuckDB, Snowflake, BigQuery, and DeltaLake I/O managers constructed SQL WHERE clauses by interpolating dynamic partition key values into queries without escaping. A user with the `Add Dynamic Partitions` permission could create a partition key that injects arbitrary SQL, which would execute against the target database backend under the I/O manager's credentials. Only deployments that use dynamic partitions are affected. Pipelines using static or time-window partitions are not impacted. ### Impact **Dagster OSS**: Any user with access to the Dagster API can create dynamic partition keys. Organizations should assess exposure based on who has API access in their deployment. Dagster is typically deployed in trusted environments where users who can manage partitions already have equivalent database access through other means. **Dagster+**: In most Dagster+ deployments using default permission sets, the `Add Dynamic Partitions` permission is granted to users with an Editor role or above, who typically already have the ability to modify the affected tables and the asset code that accesses them. The vulnerability is most relevant in deployments where this permission has been granted independently of broader database access, such as certain multi-tenant or custom RBAC configurations. In those cases, an affected user could read or modify data within the databases accessible to the I/O manager, beyond what their role would otherwise permit. Organizations should review which users hold this permission and assess their exposure accordingly. ### Remediation **Update to the patched versions listed above.** No configuration changes or workarounds are required alongside the update. Only your Dagster code version needs to be updated; the Dagster+ agent/Dagster OSS daemon/webserver do not need to be updated. The fix ensures that partition key values are properly escaped before inclusion in SQL queries across all affected I/O managers. If you are unable to apply the update, manual workarounds are described [here](https://gist.github.com/gibsondan/6d0c483f8499a8b1cd460cddc9fd8f72).

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

WeaknessesCWE-89

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats