Pgpool-II: Out-of-bounds Write
CVE-2026-92867 is a high-severity out-of-bounds write vulnerability in Pgpool-II from PgPool Global Development Group, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.7 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected Pgpool-II versions: 4.7.0 through 4.7.2; 4.6.0 through 4.6.7; 4.5.0 through 4.5.12, and others listed below. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.34% 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 Pgpool-II you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pgpool Global Development Group | Pgpool-II | 4.7.0 through 4.7.2; 4.6.0 through 4.6.7; 4.5.0 through 4.5.12; 4.4.0 through 4.4.17; 4.3.0 through 4.3.20; 3.5.x through 4.2.x | Not stated |
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
- NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious 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:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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 (jpcert.or.jp).
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 4.0 | 8.7 | High | CNA (jpcert.or.jp) |
| CVSS 3.0 | 8.8 | High | CNA (jpcert.or.jp) |
Official description
An out-of-bounds write vulnerability exists in Pgpool-II , which may allow an authenticated attacker to cause abnormal process termination or arbitrary code execution.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
References
Other references
Other vulnerabilities in Pgpool-II
- 8.7 High severity
- 9.3 Critical severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.0 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.