CVE-2026-17346 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-17346 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-17346: The fix for CVE-2026-12044 in pgAdmin 4 9.16 hardened qtLiteral and switched sixteen COMMENT ON / pgstattuple / pgstatindex templates to it, but missed several sinks that had been placed in test_sql_string_literal_lint.py's ALLOWLIST on the incorrect assumption that schema, table, publication, and subscription names sourced from pg_catalog via the browser tree could never contain an apostrophe. PostgreSQL permits arbitrary characters in quoted identifiers, so a low-privileged user able to CREATE TABLE, CREATE PUBLICATION, or CREATE SUBSCRIPTION can plant an apostrophe'd object name that breaks out of the unescaped '{{ name }}' template interpolation the moment any user (including a higher-privileged one) opens that object's Statistics or Dependencies tab, allowing arbitrary SQL statement injection in the viewing user's database session. Affected sinks: the Index Statistics query for all-indexes listing (coll_stats.sql, both the 16_plus and default PostgreSQL-version template variants -- distinct from the single-index stats.sql path already fixed in CVE-2026-12044), and the publication and subscription dependencies.sql / get_position.sql templates (both the pg and ppas/EPAS dialect variants for publications). Fix switches all of these templates to qtLiteral(conn) for name interpolation, and updates publications/__init__.py and subscriptions/__init__.py to pass conn=self.conn into the dependencies.sql render_template call so the qtLiteral filter has a connection to quote against. The corresponding ALLOWLIST entries in test_sql_string_literal_lint.py are removed now that these sinks are properly escaped rather than merely assumed safe. A behavioral regression test renders each fixed template with a stacked-statement apostrophe payload and asserts both that the object name appears exactly as qtLiteral-escaped and that the rendered SQL parses as exactly one statement, verifying the assertion genuinely fails against the pre-patch raw-interpolation form. This issue affects pgAdmin 4: the Index Statistics sink from 1.0, and the Publications/Subscriptions sinks from 5.0, both before 9.17.

CVE-2026-17346 References

External References

• https://github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/commit/73b3218992cc37af6e10b7e54eaeed6ec293c6b2
• https://github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/commit/f75452bfd0f786d0c071638919d48fc1d76f987d
• https://github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/issues/10193

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-2026-67822 – Tenda W6-S 1.0.0.4(510) contains a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the /goform/wifiSSIDset endpoint. The function formwrlSSIDset uses ...
• CVE-2026-58048 – Improper preservation of SQL mode when renaming databases in cPanel allows execution of SQL in root context.
• CVE-2026-58047 – HTTP Smuggling in cPanel allows potential leak of credentials.
• CVE-2026-54707 – OnionShare is an open source tool that lets you securely and anonymously share files, host websites, and chat with friends using the Tor network. P...
• CVE-2026-54706 – OnionShare is an open source tool that lets you securely and anonymously share files, host websites, and chat with friends using the Tor network. P...