CVE-2022-45786 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2022-45786 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2022-45786: There are issues with the AGE drivers for Golang and Python that enable SQL injections to occur. This impacts AGE for PostgreSQL 11 & AGE for PostgreSQL 12, all versions up-to-and-including 1.1.0, when using those drivers. The fix is to update to the latest Golang and Python drivers in addition to the latest version of AGE that is used for PostgreSQL 11 or  PostgreSQL 12. The update of AGE will add a new function to enable parameterization of the cypher() function, which, in conjunction with the driver updates, will resolve this issue. Background (for those who want more information): After thoroughly researching this issue, we found that due to the nature of the cypher() function, it was not easy to parameterize the values passed into it. This enabled SQL injections, if the developer of the driver wasn't careful. The developer of the Golang and Pyton drivers didn't fully utilize parameterization, likely because of this, thus enabling SQL injections. The obvious fix to this issue is to use parameterization in the drivers for all PG SQL queries. However, parameterizing all PG queries is complicated by the fact that the cypher() function call itself cannot be parameterized directly, as it isn't a real function. At least, not the parameters that would take the graph name and cypher query. The reason the cypher() function cannot have those values parameterized is because the function is a placeholder and never actually runs. The cypher() function node, created by PG in the query tree, is transformed and replaced with a query tree for the actual cypher query during the analyze phase. The problem is that parameters - that would be passed in and that the cypher() function transform needs to be resolved - are only resolved in the execution phase, which is much later. Since the transform of the cypher() function needs to know the graph name and cypher query prior to execution, they can't be passed as parameters. The fix that we are testing right now, and are proposing to use, is to create a function that will be called prior to the execution of the cypher() function transform. This new function will allow values to be passed as parameters for the graph name and cypher query. As this command will be executed prior to the cypher() function transform, its values will be resolved. These values can then be cached for the immediately following cypher() function transform to use. As added features, the cached values will store the calling session's pid, for validation. And, the cypher() function transform will clear this cached information after function invocation, regardless of whether it was used. This method will allow the parameterizing of the cypher() function indirectly and provide a way to lock out SQL injection attacks.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

The EPSS score estimates the probability that this vulnerability will be exploited in the near future.

EPSS Score: 0.273% (probability of exploit)

EPSS Percentile: 68.15% (lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 31.849999999999994% of others.

CVE-2022-45786 References

External References

• https://lists.apache.org/thread/of8x0gt5d2vfrm5ksxw55bwn2849ck1w
• https://lists.apache.org/thread/of8x0gt5d2vfrm5ksxw55bwn2849ck1w

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

• Command Line Execution through SQL Injection CAPEC-108 An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
• Object Relational Mapping Injection CAPEC-109 An attacker leverages a weakness present in the database access layer code generated with an Object Relational Mapping (ORM) tool or a weakness in the way that a developer used a persistence framework to inject their own SQL commands to be executed against the underlying database. The attack here is similar to plain SQL injection, except that the application does not use JDBC to directly talk to the database, but instead it uses a data access layer generated by an ORM tool or framework (e.g. Hibernate). While most of the time code generated by an ORM tool contains safe access methods that are immune to SQL injection, sometimes either due to some weakness in the generated code or due to the fact that the developer failed to use the generated access methods properly, SQL injection is still possible.
• SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering CAPEC-110 An attacker modifies the parameters of the SOAP message that is sent from the service consumer to the service provider to initiate a SQL injection attack. On the service provider side, the SOAP message is parsed and parameters are not properly validated before being used to access a database in a way that does not use parameter binding, thus enabling the attacker to control the structure of the executed SQL query. This pattern describes a SQL injection attack with the delivery mechanism being a SOAP message.
• Expanding Control over the Operating System from the Database CAPEC-470 An attacker is able to leverage access gained to the database to read / write data to the file system, compromise the operating system, create a tunnel for accessing the host machine, and use this access to potentially attack other machines on the same network as the database machine. Traditionally SQL injections attacks are viewed as a way to gain unauthorized read access to the data stored in the database, modify the data in the database, delete the data, etc. However, almost every data base management system (DBMS) system includes facilities that if compromised allow an attacker complete access to the file system, operating system, and full access to the host running the database. The attacker can then use this privileged access to launch subsequent attacks. These facilities include dropping into a command shell, creating user defined functions that can call system level libraries present on the host machine, stored procedures, etc.
• SQL Injection CAPEC-66 This attack exploits target software that constructs SQL statements based on user input. An attacker crafts input strings so that when the target software constructs SQL statements based on the input, the resulting SQL statement performs actions other than those the application intended. SQL Injection results from failure of the application to appropriately validate input.
• Blind SQL Injection CAPEC-7 Blind SQL Injection results from an insufficient mitigation for SQL Injection. Although suppressing database error messages are considered best practice, the suppression alone is not sufficient to prevent SQL Injection. Blind SQL Injection is a form of SQL Injection that overcomes the lack of error messages. Without the error messages that facilitate SQL Injection, the adversary constructs input strings that probe the target through simple Boolean SQL expressions. The adversary can determine if the syntax and structure of the injection was successful based on whether the query was executed or not. Applied iteratively, the adversary determines how and where the target is vulnerable to SQL Injection.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

• CVE-2024-43107 – Improper Certificate Validation (CWE-295) in the Gallagher Milestone Integration Plugin (MIP) permits unauthenticated messages (e.g. alarm events) ...
• CVE-2024-41724 – Improper Certificate Validation (CWE-295) in the Gallagher Command Centre SALTO integration allowed an attacker to spoof the SALTO server. Thi...
• CVE-2025-2133 – A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in ftcms 2.1. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /admin/ind...
• CVE-2025-2132 – A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in ftcms 2.1. Affected is an unknown function of the file /admin/index.php/web/ajax_all_lists...
• CVE-2025-2131 – A vulnerability was found in dayrui XunRuiCMS up to 4.6.3. It has been rated as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the comp...