VulnerabilityPublished 12 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-120146: PostgreSQL REASSIGN OWNED · Missing Authorization

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-120146· Medium 4.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium · fixed in 18.7 : update PostgreSQL when convenient.

Data as of 12 Nov 2026, 16:21 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (PostgreSQL)	CVSS 3.1	4.3

Patch: Available – fixed in 18.7, 17.12, 16.16 +2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 12 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 12 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.

ghsa-v5xq-4x8p-53j2

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PostgreSQL	Affected >=18 <18.7	Fixed in 18.7
PostgreSQL	Affected >=17 <17.12	Fixed in 17.12
PostgreSQL	Affected >=16 <16.16	Fixed in 16.16
PostgreSQL	Affected >=15 <15.20	Fixed in 15.20
PostgreSQL	Affected <14.25	Fixed in 14.25
Postgresqlpostgresql/postgresql`pkg:deb/postgresql/postgresql`Other threats	Affected >=18 <18.7 >=17 <17.12 >=16 <16.16 >=15 <15.20 <14.25	Fixed in 18.7 17.12 16.16 15.20 14.25

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

AI-suggested

Users should upgrade PostgreSQL to versions 18.7, 17.12, 16.16, 15.20, or 14.25 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. Until upgraded, restrict roles with INHERIT privileges carefully and monitor for unauthorized use of REASSIGN OWNED commands.

Description

A missing authorization check in PostgreSQL's REASSIGN OWNED command allows a role granted INHERIT but not SET privileges to transfer objects to the granted role. This flaw also permits reassignment of database ownership without requiring the CREATEDB privilege. The issue affects PostgreSQL versions prior to 18.7, 17.12, 16.16, 15.20, and 14.25. Equivalent ALTER ... OWNER commands do not exhibit this vulnerability.

Impact

An attacker with a role granted INHERIT privilege but without SET or CREATEDB privileges can reassign ownership of database objects improperly. This could lead to unauthorized transfer of object ownership within the database, potentially impacting data integrity by allowing privilege escalation or unauthorized control over database objects. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability reported.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
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)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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 12 Nov 2026, 16:21 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats