CVE-2026-48774
Proxysql 4.0.6 – 4.0.9
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-48774 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Proxysql Proxysql. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 19th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as AI Agent Protocols and Integrations; in the Protocol-Specific Risks risk domain.
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
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-38075
Vulnerability Data
ProxySQL is a proxy for MySQL and its forks, as well as PostgreSQL. In versions 3.0.0 through 3.0.8, ProxySQL's GenAI/MCP `run_sql_readonly` tool violates its documented read-only contract for MySQL targets. The tool validates only the full input string with a…
more
substring blacklist and first-keyword allowlist, but then executes the entire SQL string on a backend connection created with `CLIENT_MULTI_STATEMENTS`. As a result, a caller can submit a read-only first statement followed by a side-effecting second statement, such as `SELECT 1; RENAME TABLE ...`. The validator accepts the payload because it starts with `SELECT` and because side-effecting MySQL statements such as `RENAME TABLE`, `SET`, `RESET`, `LOCK TABLES`, and `KILL` are not rejected by the blacklist. In a live MCP runtime test, the `/mcp/query` endpoint accepted a `run_sql_readonly` request. The MCP response reported success for the first `SELECT`, and direct backend verification showed that the table had actually been renamed. This violates the endpoint's read-only security contract and lets an MCP caller perform backend writes or administrative SQL, limited by the configured MCP target account's database privileges. Version 3.0.9 contains a fix. Other operator mitigations include: keeping MCP disabled unless required; setting a non-empty `mcp-query_endpoint_auth` token before exposing `/mcp/query`; restricting MCP listener network exposure; configuring MCP backend target credentials as database-level read-only users; and adding temporary MCP query rules to block obvious multi-statement patterns.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- AI Agent Protocols and Integrations
- Risk Domain
- Protocol-Specific Risks
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: mcp, mcp, mcp, mcp, mcp, mcp, mcp, mcp, mcp, mcp, mcp, mcp
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20