Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-17347

RCE in Pgadmin 4 7.2 – 9.17

Published
31 July 2026
Modified
07 August 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 7.7
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
EPSS Score 0.0030 22th percentile
Risk Priority 30 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-17347 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Pgadmin Pgadmin 4. Its CVSS base score is 7.7 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 22th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

The MASTER_PASSWORD_HOOK setting, introduced in pgAdmin 4 7.2, lets an administrator configure an external command that returns a per-user encryption key, with %u in the configured string replaced by the current user's name. The previous implementation substituted the username directly…

more

into the command string and executed the result with subprocess.Popen(..., shell=True). Because the username can originate from an external authentication source (OAuth/OIDC claims, Kerberos, webserver auth) rather than a value pgAdmin fully controls, a username containing shell metacharacters (';', '$()', backticks, pipes, '&&', newlines) allowed an authenticated user to execute arbitrary commands as the pgAdmin service account in any deployment where the configured hook string uses %u. Fix tokenises the trusted, administrator-configured hook string into an argument vector first (using shlex in POSIX-quoting mode, with backslash-escaping disabled so Windows-style paths are not mis-parsed), substitutes the untrusted username into the individual argv elements, and executes with shell=False. The username is therefore always confined to a single argv element; any shell metacharacters it contains are inert. Administrators whose MASTER_PASSWORD_HOOK previously relied on shell features (pipes, redirection, environment-variable expansion, globbing) within the hook string itself must move that logic into the invoked script, since it is no longer interpreted by a shell. This issue affects pgAdmin 4: from 7.2 before 9.17.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.003 Windows Command Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse the Windows command shell for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-7816Same product: Pgadmin Pgadmin 4
CVE-2026-17566Same product: Pgadmin Pgadmin 4
CVE-2025-12762Same product: Pgadmin Pgadmin 4
CVE-2025-13780Same product: Pgadmin Pgadmin 4
CVE-2025-2945Same product: Pgadmin Pgadmin 4
CVE-2026-12044Same product: Pgadmin Pgadmin 4
CVE-2026-7815Same product: Pgadmin Pgadmin 4
CVE-2026-12047Same product: Pgadmin Pgadmin 4
CVE-2023-0241Same product: Pgadmin Pgadmin 4
CVE-2026-12050Same product: Pgadmin Pgadmin 4

Affected Assets

pgadmin
pgadmin 4
7.2 — 9.17

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.2.5
  • V1.2.8
  • V15.2.5

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.

Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.

Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.

Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.

Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

finds

Security testing and code review target insecure use of operating-system command interfaces, catching command-injection flaws introduced during development.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent argument injection.

prevents

Application security requirements include explicit rules for safe command-line argument handling and escaping.

prevents

Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe command invocation patterns and favor safer APIs.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly require proper neutralization of command arguments, directly eliminating CWE-88.

none

Change management can catch unsafe command patterns during reviews but is not a direct mitigation.

References