lightdash: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command
CVE-2026-61654 is a high-severity improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command vulnerability in lightdash, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.3 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected lightdash versions: < 0.3214.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.38% 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 lightdash 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.
- Attack requirements
- PresentThe target must be in a specific state or configuration for the attack to work.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- LowLimited loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
Lightdash is an open source business intelligence platform. In affected versions through 0.3213.0, the dbt Cloud webhook `POST /api/v1/projects/{projectUuid}/dbt-cloud/webhook` has no authentication middleware or signature validation. In `packages/backend/src/controllers/projectController.ts`, `testWebhook()` accepts `accountId` and `runId` from a `job.run.completed` request and passes them to `createPreviewWithExplores()` in `packages/backend/src/services/ProjectService/ProjectService.ts`. These unsanitized values are interpolated into the server-side dbt Cloud API URL, which is requested with the victim project's API key in the `Authorization` header. Path traversal through `accountId` changes the requested path on `cloud.getdbt.com` without changing its host, so the credential-bearing request reaches an attacker-influenced path on that fixed host. The advisory claims API-key theft, but the supplied evidence does not establish that the attacker can observe the `Authorization` header. The unauthenticated webhook also allows preview creation. The target must be a `dbt Cloud IDE` project and the attacker must know its `projectUuid`; the UUID is not enumerable but can be discovered in shared or multi-tenant contexts. Version 0.3214.0 fixes identifier path traversal and verifies webhook HMAC signatures only when a secret is configured; without a secret, unsigned webhooks continue to be processed.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command
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 developers prevent this class of flaw
- 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 persistence layers such as Hibernate or Enterprise Java Beans, which can provide significant protection against SQL injection if used properly.
- 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.
- 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.
More Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command vulnerabilities (CWE-89)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other vulnerabilities in lightdash
- 8.3 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command vulnerabilities
- 8.5 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.5 High severity
- 9.3 Critical severity
- 9.3 Critical severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.