Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-33142

SQLi in Hackerbay Oneuptime ≤ 10.0.34

Published
20 March 2026
Modified
23 March 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 8.1
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0030 22th percentile
Risk Priority 59 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-33142 is a high-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Hackerbay Oneuptime. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); 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.

Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary

Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.

CVE-2026-33142 is a SQL injection vulnerability (CWE-89) in OneUptime, an open-source solution for monitoring and managing online services. Affecting versions prior to 10.0.34, the flaw exists in the StatementGenerator component's toSortStatement, toSelectStatement, and toGroupByStatement methods. These methods accept user-controlled object keys from API request bodies—intended for sort, select, or groupBy parameters—and interpolate them directly as unescaped ClickHouse Identifier parameters into SQL queries, bypassing column name validation. This issue follows a partial fix for CVE-2026-32306, which secured the _aggregateBy method but overlooked these three query construction paths. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N).

Attackers with low privileges, such as authenticated users, can exploit this remotely over the network by sending crafted API requests to any analytics list or aggregate endpoint. By injecting malicious keys into sort, select, or groupBy objects, they can execute arbitrary SQL in ClickHouse, enabling high-impact confidentiality and integrity violations like data exfiltration or unauthorized modifications.

OneUptime has patched the issue in version 10.0.34 by applying proper validation to the affected methods. Additional mitigation details are available in the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/OneUptime/oneuptime/security/advisories/GHSA-gcg3-c5p2-cqgg.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

OneUptime is a solution for monitoring and managing online services. Prior to version 10.0.34, the fix for CVE-2026-32306 (ClickHouse SQL injection via aggregate query parameters) added column name validation to the _aggregateBy method but did not apply the same validation…

more

to three other query construction paths in StatementGenerator. The toSortStatement, toSelectStatement, and toGroupByStatement methods accept user-controlled object keys from API request bodies and interpolate them as ClickHouse Identifier parameters without verifying they correspond to actual model columns. ClickHouse Identifier parameters are substituted directly into queries without escaping, so an attacker who can reach any analytics list or aggregate endpoint can inject arbitrary SQL through crafted sort, select, or groupBy keys. This issue has been patched in version 10.0.34.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

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-2023-26034Shared CWE-89
CVE-2023-46914Shared CWE-89
CVE-2023-44284Shared CWE-89
CVE-2023-48722Shared CWE-89
CVE-2024-4071Shared CWE-89
CVE-2023-49085Shared CWE-89
CVE-2024-25314Shared CWE-89
CVE-2024-0528Shared CWE-89
CVE-2024-8167Shared CWE-89
CVE-2023-7142Shared CWE-89

Affected Assets

hackerbay
oneuptime
≤ 10.0.34

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)
  • V6.2.5

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover SQLi flaws before deployment but does not stop their introduction.

Input validation directly stops untrusted data from reaching SQL query construction without neutralization.

Secure engineering principles require parameterized queries and input sanitization that structurally eliminate SQLi.

System monitoring can identify attempted SQLi exploitation via anomalous queries after the weakness exists.

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

Secure SDLC practices directly target injection flaws during coding and review so largely prevent CWE-89 introduction, yet the single broad outcome leaves residual risk from incomplete neutralization techniques or missed edge cases.

PR.AT-02 partial match
prevents

Training raises developer awareness of SQLi risks and can reduce introduction likelihood (partial) but removes none of the actual coding flaw's risk by itself since technical neutralization is still required.

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

The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.

prevents

Early warnings and shared best-practice information help organizations apply the latest remediation techniques against SQL-injection vulnerabilities.

prevents

Threat-intelligence feeds that surface new SQL-injection campaigns enable rapid updates to query-construction defenses and detection signatures before exploitation occurs.

prevents

Secure-coding rules and security testing phases mandate the use of parameterized queries or equivalent escaping, preventing the construction of dynamic SQL statements from untrusted input.

prevents

Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.

References