ProxySQL is a proxy for MySQL and its forks, as well as PostgreSQL.
CVE-2026-48774 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in proxysql from Sysown, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected proxysql versions: >= 3.0.6, < 3.0.9. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.39% 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
- Check which version of proxysql you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
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
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- NoneNo data is disclosed.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- NoneAvailability is not affected.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
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 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.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
- Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: yes, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Advisories
- github.com/sysown/proxysql/security/advisories/GHSA-7wh6-2vcc-gcm4Exploit, Mitigation
Patches and release notes
Other vulnerabilities in proxysql
- 7.1 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 10.0 Critical severity
Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 10.0 Critical severity
- 8.3 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.