Enterprise Edition: Incorrect Authorization
CVE-2026-1497 is a high-severity incorrect authorization vulnerability in Enterprise Edition from Neo4j, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.2 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with administrator privileges, without any action from a user. The record lists versions 5.26.22, 2026.02 as the first without the flaw, so updating Enterprise Edition to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.27% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update Enterprise Edition to 5.26.22 or 2026.02, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
- Update Neo4j to 5.26.22 or 2026.02.0, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
- Read the advisory on neo4j.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neo4j | Enterprise Edition | 5.0 up to, but not including, 5.26.22; 2025.01 up to, but not including, 2026.02 | 5.26.22, 2026.02 |
| Neo4j | Neo4j | before 5.26.22; 2025.01.0 up to, but not including, 2026.02.0 | 5.26.22, 2026.02.0 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- HighAdministrator-level access is required first.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 4.0 | 2.0 | Low | CNA |
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.2 | High | NVD |
Official description
Incorrect resolving of namespaces in composite databases in Neo4j Enterprise edition prior to versions 2026.02 and 5.26.22 can lead to the following scenario: an admin that intends to give a user an access to a remote database constituent "namespace.name" will inadvertently grant access to any local database or remote alias called "name". If such database or alias doesn't exist when the command is run, the privileges will apply if it's created in the future.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: yes, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Advisories
Other vulnerabilities in Enterprise Edition
- 7.5 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
Recent Incorrect Authorization vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.