pgAdmin 4: Files opened in a storage directory follow a symbolic link, hard link or FIFO planted after the containment check
Only pgAdmin 4 server mode is affected in versions before 9.19; desktop mode is unchanged. The fix is listed for 9.19.
- Last modified
- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean? →
- published
- Whether CISA lists it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog: proof that attackers are using it.What do these mean? →
- Not listed in CISA KEV
- How many real-world setups can hit the bug, from the vendor's advisory and CISA data. It does not know your setup.What do these mean? →
- Specific setups only
- Fix
- Fixed in 9.19
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
Summary
pgAdmin 4 (the server-mode web application for PostgreSQL administration) is affected, including its servers.json import and export, file listing, and the Backup, Restore, and Import/Export Data features that call pg_dump, pg_dumpall, pg_restore, and psql. The flaw could let a symbolic link, hard link, or FIFO swapped into a user's storage directory redirect file reads, writes, or table loads to locations outside that directory, with the effects running as the pgAdmin operating-system account.
Summarized by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5. Verify details against the original sources.
Read the original description
In server mode pgAdmin 4 validates a path a user gives for a file in their storage directory with check_access_permission() and then opened it by name. Several places opened it with a plain open() or handed the path to a utility that opened it later: the servers.json export and import and the import file listing, and the files given to pg_dump, pg_dumpall, pg_restore and psql by Backup, Restore and Import/Export Data. A symbolic link swapped in at the file or at any parent directory between the check and the open redirected the operation outside the storage directory, so a file could be written, overwritten or read, or loaded into a table, as the operating-system account running pgAdmin. A hard link to an outside file, which O_NOFOLLOW does not detect, and a FIFO, which could hang a request, had the same effect. CVE-2026-86861 fixed this for the File Manager's save_file; these were the remaining paths. Exploitation requires creating such a link or FIFO inside the user's storage directory. pgAdmin offers no way to do so, and the per-user storage directories belong to the pgAdmin account, so this requires write access to the storage backend as a different operating-system user, for example a shared or network-mounted storage directory, and winning the race. The fix opens each file by walking down from the storage directory one component at a time with O_NOFOLLOW, accepting only a regular file with one link, and passes the utilities the open descriptor (/dev/fd/N) on Linux. Error messages no longer include the server path. This issue affects pgAdmin 4: before 9.19.
Timeline
- CVE published
- First seen by cve.now
Affected versions
- pgadmin.org pgAdmin 4
fixed in 9.19
References 4
GitHub · pgadmin-org/pgadmin4
Questions about CVE-2026-116250
What does this mean?
When pgAdmin opens a file in a user's storage directory, an attacker-planted symbolic link, hard link or FIFO can redirect the open to another file. A backup can then overwrite that file, or a restore or \copy can read it, with the permissions of the operating-system account running pgAdmin.Source: github.com, github.com
Am I affected, and how do I check?
pgAdmin 4 versions before 9.19 running in server mode are affected; desktop mode is unchanged. To check, look at the installed pgAdmin 4 version and whether the deployment runs in server mode.Source: github.com, github.com
What should I do about it?
Upgrade to pgAdmin 4 9.19, the version listed as the fix.Source: github.com, github.com
Is it being exploited?
It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data