VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-54760: Langroid · SQLChatAgent dangerous-function blocklist can be bypassed with quoted or schema-qualified pg_read_file calls

Affects langroidSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-25879

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.3 Critical : upgrade to 0.65.1 as a priority.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.3Critical

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.65.1

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Jul 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 langroid to 0.65.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIlangroid	Affected <0.65.1	Fixed in 0.65.1

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

AI-suggested

The suggested fix is to avoid relying on raw-text regex for dangerous function detection. Instead, after parsing SQL with sqlglot, the AST should be walked to reject any function invocation whose normalized, unquoted, schema-stripped, and case-folded name matches a dangerous set (e.g., pg_read_file, pg_read_binary_file, pg_ls_dir, pg_stat_file, lo_import, lo_export, load_file, load_extension). If you cannot patch yet, users should be cautious about allowing untrusted input to influence SQLChatAgent-generated queries when using PostgreSQL with elevated privileges.

Description

# SQLChatAgent `_validate_query` dangerous-pattern regex is bypassable via quoted/commented/qualified function names ## Summary The `SQLChatAgent` SQL-injection mitigation, with default `allow_dangerous_operations=False`, combines a raw-text regex blocklist (`_DANGEROUS_SQL_PATTERNS`) with a `sqlglot` SELECT-only statement allowlist. The blocklist entries that target callable functions require the function name to be immediately followed by `\s*\(`. PostgreSQL accepts the same call with the name separated from `(` by a quoted identifier, an inline comment, or schema qualification. These forms evade the regex, still parse as `SELECT`, and execute the same PostgreSQL function. This restores the `pg_read_file` server-side file-read primitive that the prior CVE-2026-25879 / GHSA-pmch-g965-grmr fix was meant to block: the parent advisory fixed a missing `pg_read_file` blocklist entry, while this report shows that the added regex is bypassable. ## Affected Code Tested against current `main` commit: `6e8e7b2bb23ec04c1c25be479f16b8cc9a4f8796` The current source still contains: ```python re.compile(r"\bpg_(read|stat|ls|current_logfile)[A-Za-z0-9_]*\s*\(", re.IGNORECASE) ``` `_validate_query` checks the raw query against `_DANGEROUS_SQL_PATTERNS`, then parses with `sqlglot` and allows `SELECT` statements. The dangerous-call check is raw text, not normalized AST function-name matching. ## Root Cause The current mitigation treats dangerous PostgreSQL function calls as a raw-text regex problem. The regex requires the `pg_...` function token to be followed directly by optional whitespace and `(`, but PostgreSQL accepts equivalent calls through quoted identifiers, comments, and schema-qualified names. Because `_validate_query` only uses `sqlglot` to enforce the top-level statement type, those normalized function names are never checked after parsing. ## Auth Boundary The boundary is the default `SQLChatAgent` safety policy between attacker-influenced SQL generation and database operations that can read server-side files. With `allow_dangerous_operations=False`, a user or prompt that influences generated SQL should not be able to bypass the guard and execute PostgreSQL file-read functions such as `pg_read_file`. This is not a new unauthenticated endpoint or product-wide SQL injection; it applies when untrusted user content can influence SQLChatAgent's generated SQL. ## Reproduction The local harness uses the current `sql_chat_agent.py`, extracts the real shipped dangerous regex list, validates the queries with real `sqlglot==30.8.0`, then executes the accepted bypasses against a local throwaway PostgreSQL 16 container. Transcript excerpt: ```text CONTROL "SELECT pg_read_file('/etc/passwd')" -> REJECTED: matches '\\bpg_(read|stat|ls|current_logfile)[A-Za-z0-9_]*\\s*\\(' BYPASS 'SELECT "pg_read_file"(\'/etc/passwd\')' -> ALLOWED (validator returned None -> would execute) BYPASS "SELECT pg_read_file/**/('/etc/passwd')" -> ALLOWED (validator returned None -> would execute) BYPASS 'SELECT pg_catalog."pg_read_file"(\'/etc/passwd\')' -> ALLOWED (validator returned None -> would execute) === Part B: real PostgreSQL execution of the bypass === connected; is_superuser=t executed bypass 'SELECT "pg_read_file"(\'<file>\')' -> file contents returned: 'LANGROID_SAFE_MARKER_...' executed bypass "SELECT pg_read_file/**/('<file>')" -> file contents returned: 'LANGROID_SAFE_MARKER_...' executed bypass 'SELECT pg_catalog."pg_read_file"(\'<file>\')' -> file contents returned: 'LANGROID_SAFE_MARKER_...' RESULT: VULNERABLE ``` The control query is blocked by the current regex, while all three equivalent PostgreSQL forms are allowed by the validator and return the mounted proof file contents from a real PostgreSQL server. The `LANGROID_SAFE_MARKER_...` value is a harmless marker generated inside the throwaway local container for this proof. ## Impact On a deployment using `SQLChatAgent` against PostgreSQL with a role able to call `pg_read_file` (superuser, or a role granted `pg_read_server_files`), an attacker who can influence LLM-generated SQL can coerce the agent into emitting one of the obfuscated queries and read files accessible to the PostgreSQL server process through `pg_read_file`. This is the same impact and precondition shape as the published `pg_read_file` advisory, but it targets the bypassability of the current regex-based fix rather than the pre-fix absence of a `pg_read_file` block. Severity: High by parity with the published parent advisory; not Critical. CWE-184 leading to server-side file read. ## Suggested Fix Do not rely on raw-text regex matching for dangerous-call detection. After the existing `sqlglot` parse, walk the AST and reject any function invocation whose normalized, unquoted, schema-stripped, case-folded name is in a dangerous set such as `pg_read_file`, `pg_read_binary_file`, `pg_ls_dir`, `pg_stat_file`, `lo_import`, `lo_export`, `load_file`, or `load_extension`. Also

Impact

An attacker able to influence SQL generated by SQLChatAgent on a PostgreSQL database with roles permitted to call pg_read_file or similar functions can bypass the regex-based filter and read arbitrary files accessible to the database server process. This leads to unauthorized disclosure of server-side files, which can include sensitive information. The impact severity is high, consistent with the parent advisory for pg_read_file misuse. This is not a new unauthenticated endpoint or general SQL injection but a bypass of an existing mitigation in a specific SQL generation context.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
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
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
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
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

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Jul 2026, 23:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22, CWE-89

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats