CVE-2026-58225 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-58225 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-58225: SQL Injection vulnerability in elixir-ecto postgrex allows an attacker who can influence a LISTEN channel name to inject SQL into the reconnect replay query, causing a denial of service of the notification connection. Postgrex.Notifications sanitizes channel names with quote_channel/1, which doubles double quotes so the name is safe inside a double-quoted identifier. This protects the single-statement LISTEN and UNLISTEN paths. On every (re)connect, however, handle_connect/1 replays all registered channels at once by concatenating their LISTEN statements and wrapping them in a dollar-quoted anonymous code block (DO $$BEGIN ... END$$). quote_channel/1 does not escape the $$ dollar-quote delimiter that opens and closes this block. The listen/3 guards only reject null bytes and names longer than 63 bytes, so a channel name containing $$ passes validation unchanged. Once such a name is embedded, its $$ prematurely terminates the outer dollar-quoted string and PostgreSQL parses the remainder as additional top-level statements. Because handle_connect/1 runs on every (re)connect, the malformed replay query is rejected each time and the notification connection never re-establishes its subscriptions, silently dropping notifications for every channel sharing that connection. An application is affected when it passes untrusted input (for example a tenant or user identifier) as a channel name to Postgrex.Notifications.listen/3. The double-quote doubling prevents forming a fully valid injected statement, so arbitrary SQL execution is not possible, but the corrupted query reliably breaks the shared notification connection for all tenants, resulting in denial of service. This issue affects postgrex: from 0.16.0 before 0.22.3.

CVE-2026-58225 References

External References

• https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-58225.html
• https://github.com/elixir-ecto/ecto/security/advisories/GHSA-4mw9-4qgj-m97w
• https://github.com/elixir-ecto/postgrex/commit/795c6062f62c4394272ff4b89170688857b4f841
• https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-58225
• https://github.com/elixir-ecto/ecto/security/advisories/GHSA-4mw9-4qgj-m97w

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-2026-56814 – Plug.Parsers.MULTIPART, the multipart request-body parser used to handle file uploads and multipart forms, does not enforce its :length budget agai...
• CVE-2026-56690 – Dell PowerFlex Manager, Version prior to 5.1.0.1, contain(s) an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection'...
• CVE-2026-56689 – Dell PowerFlex Manager, Version prior to 5.1.0.1, contain(s) an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection'...
• CVE-2026-56688 – Dell PowerFlex Manager, Version prior to 5.1.0.1, contain(s) an Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Inje...
• CVE-2026-54468 – Dell Unisphere for PowerMax, version(s) 10.3.0.5 and prior, contain(s) a path traversal vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with remote access...