Skip to content

GHSA-r2f4-ff2p-xc64 CVE-2026-5394

Pimcore Platform - SQL Injection in DataObject composite index handling during class definition import/save

Critical Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.43%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 37.70% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-89 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
Fix
12.3.7
Upgrade pimcore/pimcore to this version or later

Description

My name is Oscar Uribe, Security Researcher at Fluid Attacks. I am reaching out because we have identified a security vulnerability in Pimcore 12.3.3 that we would like to report to you so we can coordinate a responsible disclosure together.

As part of our standard disclosure measures, we follow a timeline (outlined at https://fluidattacks.com/advisories/policy), which is aligned with ISO/IEC 29147:2018 and ISO/IEC 30111:2019. In short, the timeline works as follows: we ask for acknowledgment of the report within a few days of your first accessing it, and from there, we are happy to coordinate a joint disclosure date with you, typically within 90 days of the initial discovery. This gives your team reasonable time to assess, develop, and release a fix.

We have reserved the CVE ID "CVE-2026-5394" for this issue, and the advisory will eventually be published at https://fluidattacks.com/advisories/dragons. We are committed to coordinating the timing of that publication with you.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions about the report, the process, or the timeline. We are glad to work with you on this.

Description

An authenticated administrative user who can import or save DataObject class definitions can inject attacker-controlled composite index metadata and trigger unintended SQL execution in the backend.

The vulnerable flow accepts compositeIndices from imported JSON, stores the values without strict validation, and later concatenates them directly into ALTER TABLE ... DROP INDEX and ALTER TABLE ... ADD INDEX statements executed through Doctrine DBAL.

Although the original report focused on compositeIndices.index_key, independent code review shows that the strongest and most reliable injection point is compositeIndices.index_columns, because it is inserted verbatim inside the ADD INDEX (...) clause. This permits injection of additional ALTER TABLE subclauses against Pimcore object tables without relying on stacked queries.

Vulnerability

Root cause

  1. Source:
    • Pimcore\Model\DataObject\ClassDefinition\Service::importClassDefinitionFromJson() accepts compositeIndices directly from imported JSON.
  2. Assignment:
    • Pimcore\Model\DataObject\ClassDefinition::setCompositeIndices() does not enforce an allowlist for index names or column names.
    • The only special handling is a ManyToOne relation rewrite to __id and __type, which is not a security control.
  3. Sink:
    • Pimcore\Model\DataObject\Traits\CompositeIndexTrait::updateCompositeIndices() builds raw SQL with string concatenation and executes it via $this->db->executeQuery(...).
  4. Missing protection:
    • quoteIdentifier() is used for the SHOW INDEXES query, but not for the dynamic ALTER TABLE statements.
    • No server-side schema validation restricts index_key or index_columns to known safe identifier characters.

Confirmed source-to-sink path

  1. importClassDefinitionFromJson() decodes attacker-controlled JSON and forwards compositeIndices.
  2. setCompositeIndices() stores those values without sanitizing identifier content.
  3. ClassDefinition::save() reaches ClassDefinition\Dao::update().
  4. Dao::update() calls updateCompositeIndices() for:
    • object_store_<classId>
    • object_query_<classId>
  5. Localizedfield\Dao also calls updateCompositeIndices() for:
    • localized query tables
    • localized store tables

Why this is exploitable

The vulnerable ADD INDEX statement is built as:

'ALTER TABLE `'.$table.'` ADD INDEX `' . $key.'` ('.$columnName.');'

$columnName is produced from implode(',', $columns) and is not quoted or validated. A malicious index_columns element such as:

slider), DROP COLUMN `oo_className` -- 

produces SQL of the form:

ALTER TABLE `object_query_<id>` ADD INDEX `c_poc_idx` (slider), DROP COLUMN `oo_className` -- );

This remains a single ALTER TABLE statement, so the base vulnerability does not depend on multi-statement support. The attacker can inject additional DDL clauses affecting the target Pimcore object table.

Impact

The issue allows a privileged attacker to alter backend SQL behavior during class-definition import/save and modify schema on Pimcore object tables associated with the affected class.

Practical impact includes:

  • unauthorized schema modification on object query/store tables
  • backend denial of service by breaking expected table layout
  • data integrity impact for DataObject storage and queries

index_key is also concatenated into SQL without proper identifier escaping, but the most defensible exploitation path is through index_columns.

Relevant code:

  • models/DataObject/ClassDefinition/Service.php:92-137
  • models/DataObject/ClassDefinition.php:994-1006
  • models/DataObject/Traits/CompositeIndexTrait.php:30-85
  • models/DataObject/ClassDefinition/Dao.php:217-218
  • models/DataObject/Localizedfield/Dao.php:945-951

PoC

Application-level PoC

Preconditions:

  • valid authenticated administrative session
  • ability to import or save a class definition containing compositeIndices

The original report reproduced the issue through an authenticated Studio endpoint:

POST /pimcore-studio/api/class/definition/configuration-view/detail/1/import

Minimal malicious JSON fragment:

{
  "compositeIndices": [
    {
      "index_key": "poc_idx",
      "index_type": "query",
      "index_columns": [
        "slider), DROP COLUMN `oo_className` -- "
      ]
    }
  ]
}

Reproduction:

  1. Authenticate as an administrator with permission to manage/import class definitions.
  2. Export an existing class definition or prepare a valid class-definition JSON document.
  3. Replace only the compositeIndices section with the payload above.
  4. Import the modified definition or save the class through the administrative workflow.

Expected result:

  • Pimcore reaches updateCompositeIndices() during class save/import.
  • The backend executes an attacker-influenced ALTER TABLE statement against the target object table.
  • The affected class table is modified unexpectedly, for example by dropping a column or otherwise changing schema.

Minimal source-level confirmation

The behavior is directly visible from the code path:

$newIndicesMap['c_' . $key] = implode(',', $columns);
$columnName = $newIndicesMap[$key];
$this->db->executeQuery(
    'ALTER TABLE `'.$table.'` ADD INDEX `' . $key.'` ('.$columnName.');'
);

No escaping or allowlist validation is applied to $columns before they are interpolated into SQL.

Evidence of Exploitation

  • Video of exploitation:

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/64a49147-12a5-4550-ba22-cb4383523557

  • Static evidence:

<img width="3004" height="1686" alt="Dragons-img" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2e920636-ce7e-4f8b-b80c-88fb3c4c5299" />

Our security policy

We have reserved the ID CVE-2026-5394 to refer to this issue from now on.

Disclosure policy

System Information

Pimcore Platform Version v12.3.3 Database layer: doctrine/dbal ^4.4 Operating System: Any

References

Github Repository: https://github.com/pimcore/pimcore Security: https://github.com/pimcore/pimcore/security

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pimcore/pimcore
>= 12.0.0-RC1, < 12.3.7
12.3.7
pimcore/pimcore
< 11.5.17
11.5.17
pimcore/pimcore
>= 2026.1.0, < 2026.1.3
2026.1.3

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.

pimcore/pimcore Packagist → 12.3.7

composer
composer require pimcore/pimcore:^12.3.7

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
High
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. For example, consider using persistence layers such as Hibernate or Enterprise Java Beans, which can provide significant protection against SQL injection if used properly.
  • Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. Process SQL queries using prepared statements, parameterized queries, or stored procedures. These features should accept parameters or variables and support strong typing. Do not dynamically construct and execute query strings within these features using "exec" or similar functionality, since this may re-introduce the possibility of SQL injection. [REF-867]
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations. Specifically, follow the principle of least privilege when creating user accounts to a SQL database. The database users should only have the minimum privileges necessary to use their account. If the requirements of the system indicate that a user can read and modify their own data, then limit their privileges so they cannot read/write others' data. Use the strictest permissions possible on all database objects, such as execute-only for stored procedures.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Implementation: While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88). Instead of building a new implementation, such features may be available in the database or programming language. For example, the Oracle DBMS_ASSERT package can check or enforce that parameters have certain properties that make them less vulnerable to SQL injection. For MySQL, the mysql_real_escape_string() API function is available in both C and PHP.
  • 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. When constructing SQL query strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing SQL injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent SQL injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, the name "O'Reilly" would likely pass the validation step, since it is a common last name in the English language. However, it cannot be directly inserted into the data
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
  • Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of SQL Injection, error messages revealing the structure of a SQL query can help attackers tailor successful attack strings.
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481.
  • Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-9x44-4gxf-8c25
Pimcore Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via DataObject Class-Definition Field Name
Critical Linked by the source
GHSA-23rh-xw42-fq82
Pimcore: SQL Injection in Custom Reports via Malicious Report Configuration
High Also affects pimcore/pimcore
GHSA-w23p-wrp7-ch38
Pimcore Hotspotimage getDataFromResource() unrestricted Serialize::unserialize over object-store column (PHP Object Injection, CWE-502)
Critical Also affects pimcore/pimcore
GHSA-2mhj-fhvg-v428
Pimcore: ClassDefinition UID regex missing end anchor allows SQL injection via Block.php unquoted table name
High Also affects pimcore/pimcore
GHSA-7p36-fq2r-4h7r
Pimcore CMS Twig Sandbox Bypass via SecurityPolicy checkMethodAllowed
High Also affects pimcore/pimcore
GHSA-jwcc-gv4m-93x6
Pimcore has a CustomReports Share Bypass
High Also affects pimcore/pimcore
GHSA-332x-r494-54fq
Pimcore has a WordExport Authorization Bypass for Unauthorized Document Export
Medium Also affects pimcore/pimcore
GHSA-wc7j-g8wx-m2qx
Pimcore: Missing Authorization in WebDAV MOVE via unchecked asset move handling
High Also affects pimcore/pimcore
Is this in your code?

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