GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v CVE-2025-13780 PYSEC-2026-450
pgadmin4 has a Meta-Command Filter Command Execution
High
PyPI
- Severity
- 9.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.94%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 61.04% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
9.11- Upgrade pgadmin4 to this version or later
Description
The PLAIN restore meta-command filter introduced in pgAdmin as part of the fix for CVE-2025-12762 does not detect meta-commands when a SQL file begins with a UTF-8 Byte Order Mark (EF BB BF) or other special byte sequences. The implemented filter uses the function has_meta_commands(), which scans raw bytes using a regular expression. The regex does not treat the bytes as ignorable, so meta-commands such as \\! remain undetected. When pgAdmin invokes psql with --file, psql strips the bytes and executes the command. This can result in remote command execution during a restore operation.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| pgadmin4 | < 9.11 |
9.11 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
pgadmin4 PyPI → 9.11
- pip
pip install --upgrade "pgadmin4>=9.11"- poetry
poetry add "pgadmin4>=9.11"- uv
uv add "pgadmin4>=9.11"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
- Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
- System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-hv9p-2pqf-r5w3 pgAdmin 4: Improper restriction of excessive authentication attempts | Medium | Also affects pgadmin4 |
| GHSA-hr4r-fwpv-c95j pgAdmin 4 File Manager has symbolic-link path traversal | High | Also affects pgadmin4 |
| GHSA-4rhg-h8f2-v4jm pgAdmin 4 has deserialization of untrusted data in its FileBackedSessionManager | High | Also affects pgadmin4 |
| GHSA-p58c-q354-6c4f pgAdmin 4 contains local file inclusion (LFI) and server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerabilities | Medium | Also affects pgadmin4 |
| GHSA-j74f-g7vx-fh4x pgAdmin 4: OS command injection vulnerability in Import/Export query export | High | Also affects pgadmin4 |
| GHSA-hp84-p2gq-6fvr SQL injection vulnerability in pgAdmin 4 Maintenance Tool | High | Also affects pgadmin4 |
| GHSA-6p2c-69cv-3fxq pgAdmin 4: Stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Browser Tree and Explain Visualizer modules | Medium | Also affects pgadmin4 |
| GHSA-h2x2-q2mc-24gw pgAdmin 4 server mode has an authorization vulnerability affecting Server Groups, Servers, Shared Servers, Background Processes, and Debugger modules | Critical | Also affects pgadmin4 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor