VulnerabilityPublished 12 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-125325: github.com/pgEdge/pgedge-rag-server · pgEdge RAG Server shared keyword index leaked results between concurrent unauthenticated requests

Affects github.com/pgEdge/pgedge-rag-serverSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-125325· Medium 5.9

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium : upgrade to 1.0.1-0.20260729020411-a09d4872356b when convenient.

Data as of 12 Nov 2026, 20:41 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	5.9

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.0.1-0.20260729020411-a09d4872356b

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: 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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 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 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.

What to do

Upgrade github.com/pgEdge/pgedge-rag-server to 1.0.1-0.20260729020411-a09d4872356b.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/pgEdge/pgedge-rag-server	Affected <1.0.1-0.20260729020411-a09d4872356b	Fixed in 1.0.1-0.20260729020411-a09d4872356b

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade to pgEdge RAG Server version 2.0.0 or later, where the keyword index is built per request, eliminating the shared state and leakage. As a temporary workaround, set 'hybrid_enabled: false' on the pipeline or pass 'disable_hybrid' per request to disable the shared keyword index feature. However, these workarounds do not fully substitute for upgrading. Note that affected responses cannot be identified retrospectively from server logs, so treat any concurrent queries on vulnerable versions as potentially compromised.

Description

pgEdge RAG Server versions 1.0.0 and earlier have a concurrency flaw causing shared keyword index leakage between unauthenticated concurrent requests. This allows documents from one caller to be returned to another, defeating tenant or customer scoping filters without requiring injection or malformed input. The issue is fixed in version 2.0.0 by building the index per request instead of sharing it. Workarounds include disabling the hybrid keyword index feature, but upgrading is strongly recommended.

Impact

Confidential documents belonging to one caller can be returned to another caller due to shared keyword index state across concurrent unauthenticated requests. This breaks tenant or customer data isolation in multi-tenant deployments relying on search filters. No special input manipulation is required; normal concurrent load suffices. The impact is unauthorized data disclosure (confidentiality breach) without affecting integrity or availability.

Summary

The vulnerability in pgEdge RAG Server (CVE-2026-125325) arises from the BM25 keyword index being a single shared object per pipeline used by all concurrent requests. Each request clears and refills this index with its own filtered corpus but only locks each step separately, allowing interleaving of concurrent requests. Consequently, a search may run against a corpus populated by another request's filter, leaking documents across tenants or customers. The affected versions include 1.0.0 and all earlier alpha and beta pre-releases. The query endpoint is unauthenticated, so anonymous remote callers can both leak and receive data. The issue is resolved in version 2.0.0 by creating the keyword index per request. The regression is confirmed by a dedicated test. Because affected responses cannot be identified from logs, any concurrent query on vulnerable versions should be treated as potentially leaking data. Workarounds include disabling the hybrid keyword index feature per pipeline or per request, but these are not substitutes for upgrading.

CWE-362Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization (Race Condition) (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
Architecture and Design
In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
Architecture and Design
Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
Architecture and Design
Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Time-of-Check and Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-488Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not sufficiently enforce boundaries between the states of different sessions, causing data to be provided to, or used by, the wrong session.
Architecture and Design
Protect the application's sessions from information leakage. Make sure that a session's data is not used or visible by other sessions.
Testing
Use a static analysis tool to scan the code for information leakage vulnerabilities (e.g. Singleton Member Field).
Architecture and Design
In a multithreading environment, storing user data in Servlet member fields introduces a data access race condition. Do not use member fields to store information in the Servlet.
Attack patterns
Session Credential Falsification through Prediction (opens in a new tab)
Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay) (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, 20:41 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-362, CWE-488

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats