Microsoft SQL Server · Kwetsbaarheden Verholpen
Affects Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum MicrosoftSource GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 14.0.2150.2 →: patch Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum Microsoft soon.
Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 22:19 UTC
Thin evidence
One scorer or none| CNA (microsoft) | CVSS 3.1 | 7.5 |
|---|
- Patch
- Available – fixed in 14.0.2150.2, 14.0.3570.2, 15.0.2210.4 +5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H/E:U/RL:O/RC:CBase metrics
- Attack Vector
- Network
- Attack Complexity
- High
- Privileges Required
- Low
- User Interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Temporal metrics
- Exploit Code Maturity
- Unproven
- Remediation Level
- Official Fix
- Report Confidence
- Confirmed
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: High
- A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
- 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: High
- There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
- Exploit Code Maturity: Unproven
- No exploit code is available, or an exploit is theoretical.
- Remediation Level: Official Fix
- A complete vendor solution is available. Either the vendor has issued an official patch, or an upgrade is available.
- Report Confidence: Confirmed
- Detailed reports exist, or functional reproduction is possible (functional exploits may provide this). Source code is available to independently verify the assertions of the research, or the author or vendor of the affected code has confirmed the presence of the vulnerability.
Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.
Exploitation evidence
Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Nov 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 10 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 to a fixed release listed under Affected software.
Affected software
| Product | Affected | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| MicrosoftMicrosoft SQL Server 2017 (GDR) | Affected
| Fixed in
|
| MicrosoftMicrosoft SQL Server 2017 for x64-based Systems (CU31) | Affected
| Fixed in
|
| MicrosoftMicrosoft SQL Server 2019 (GDR) | Affected
| Fixed in
|
| MicrosoftMicrosoft SQL Server 2019 for x64-based Systems (CU32) | Affected
| Fixed in
|
| MicrosoftMicrosoft SQL Server 2022 (GDR) | Affected
| Fixed in
|
| MicrosoftMicrosoft SQL Server 2022 for x64-based Systems (CU27) | Affected
| Fixed in
|
Description
Microsoft heeft 55 kwetsbaarheden verholpen in diverse componenten van SQL Server.
- CWE-250Execution with Unnecessary Privileges (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product performs an operation at a privilege level that is higher than the minimum level required, which creates new weaknesses or amplifies the consequences of other weaknesses.
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.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Identify the functionality that requires additional privileges, such as access to privileged operating system resources. Wrap and centralize this functionality if possible, and isolate the privileged code as much as possible from other code.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Identify the functionality that requires additional privileges, such as access to privileged operating system resources. Wrap and centralize this functionality if possible, and isolate the privileged code as much as possible from other code.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (Command Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #23OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Implementation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-122Heap-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #16
The product writes past the end of a buffer that was allocated on the heap.
Pre-design: Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-822Untrusted Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product obtains a value from an untrusted source, converts this value to a pointer, and dereferences the resulting pointer.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-126Buffer Over-read (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product reads from a buffer using buffer access mechanisms such as indexes or pointers that reference memory locations after the targeted buffer.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
The product writes past the end of a buffer that was allocated on the stack.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-327Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the design allows one cryptographic algorithm to be replaced with another in the next generation or version. Where possible, use wrappers to make the interfaces uniform. This will make it easier to upgrade to stronger algorithms.
Architecture and Design
Carefully manage and protect cryptographic keys (see CWE-320). If the keys can be guessed or stolen, then the strength of the cryptography itself is irrelevant.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-908Use of Uninitialized Resource (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product uses or accesses a resource that has not been initialized.
Implementation
Explicitly initialize the resource before use. If this is performed through an API function or standard procedure, follow all required steps.
Implementation
Pay close attention to complex conditionals that affect initialization, since some branches might not perform the initialization.
Implementation
Avoid race conditions (CWE-362) during initialization routines.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- 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
- 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).
- CWE-346Origin Validation Error (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code (Code Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-294Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
Architecture and Design
Utilize some sequence or time stamping functionality along with a checksum which takes this into account in order to ensure that messages can be parsed only once.
Architecture and Design
Since any attacker who can listen to traffic can see sequence numbers, it is necessary to sign messages with some kind of cryptography to ensure that sequence numbers are not simply doctored along with content.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-749Exposed Dangerous Method or Function (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product provides an Applications Programming Interface (API) or similar interface for interaction with external actors, but the interface includes a dangerous method or function that is not properly restricted.
Architecture and Design
If you must expose a method, make sure to perform input validation on all arguments, limit access to authorized parties, and protect against all possible vulnerabilities.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Identify all exposed functionality. Explicitly list all functionality that must be exposed to some user or set of users. Identify which functionality may be: accessible to all users; restricted to a small set of privileged users; prevented from being directly accessible at all
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- GCVE source
- db.gcve.eu
- Csaf Category
- csaf_security_advisory
- Csaf Version
- 2.0
- Publisher
- Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum
- Advisory ID
- NCSC-2026-0476
- CVE Count
- 55
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2026-116930, CVE-2026-116931, CVE-2026-116932, CVE-2026-116933, CVE-2026-116934, CVE-2026-116935, CVE-2026-116936, CVE-2026-116937, CVE-2026-116938, CVE-2026-116939, CVE-2026-116940, CVE-2026-116941, CVE-2026-116942, CVE-2026-116943, CVE-2026-116944, CVE-2026-116945, CVE-2026-116946, CVE-2026-116947, CVE-2026-118102, CVE-2026-118103, CVE-2026-118104, CVE-2026-118105, CVE-2026-118106, CVE-2026-118108, CVE-2026-118109, CVE-2026-118110, CVE-2026-118111, CVE-2026-118112, CVE-2026-118113, CVE-2026-118114, CVE-2026-118115, CVE-2026-118116, CVE-2026-118117, CVE-2026-118118, CVE-2026-118119, CVE-2026-118120, CVE-2026-45478, CVE-2026-62903, CVE-2026-66813, CVE-2026-67372, CVE-2026-67374, CVE-2026-67382, CVE-2026-67387, CVE-2026-67391, CVE-2026-67632, CVE-2026-67637, CVE-2026-67646, CVE-2026-68783, CVE-2026-69893, CVE-2026-70003, CVE-2026-84010, CVE-2026-88111, CVE-2026-94511, CVE-2026-94513
References
Community reviews
Related threats
- Microsoft Office · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability
- Microsoft Developer Tools · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability
- Microsoft Windows · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability
- Microsoft Windows · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability
- Microsoft Exchange server · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability