CVE WatchAug 10, 2026

CVE-2026-48772

ProxySQL is a proxy for MySQL and its forks, as well as PostgreSQL. In versions 2.0.0 through 3.0.8, the ProxySQL MySQL frontend accepts the

CVSS

10.0

Critical

EPSS

0.2%

p12

KEV

—

Exploit Today

0-100

Published: Jun 19, 2026 · Last modified: Aug 10, 2026 · CWE-348 · CWE-863

EPSS · 30d

0.2%EPSS · 30 days0.2%

2026-07-182026-08-15

Technical description

ProxySQL is a proxy for MySQL and its forks, as well as PostgreSQL. In versions 2.0.0 through 3.0.8, the ProxySQL MySQL frontend accepts the `PROXY UNKNOWN <addr> <addr> <port> <port>\r\n` PP1 frame as a well-formed PROXY protocol header. The HAProxy PROXY protocol v1 specification says that when the protocol token is `UNKNOWN`, the receiver MUST ignore any address fields that follow it, because the proxy has declared it cannot determine the client identity. ProxySQL parses those address fields anyway via `sscanf` and writes the spoofed source address into the session's `addr.addr` field. From there it flows directly into the query-rule matcher, where the `client_addr` predicate decides routing and ACL. When `mysql-proxy_protocol_networks = '*'` (the default), any TCP peer can send a PP1 frame and choose any source IP claim. With that, any `mysql_query_rules` row pinned to a `client_addr` value is forgeable: the attacker writes the address they want to match into the PP1 line, and ProxySQL routes their query as if it came from that address. In practice this is a routing and ACL bypass. Real deployments use `client_addr` for read-write splitting (internal apps go to the primary, public traffic to read replicas), per-app schema pinning, and query-filter rules (DDL allowed only from admin CIDR, public queries blocked from dangerous patterns). An attacker that can reach the frontend port can forge their way into any of those routes. Version 3.0.9 patches this issue.

Official references

Related CVEs

CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.

CVE-2026-730596.5 MED

—

———stoatchat before 0.15.0 contains a permission bypass vulnerability in the message_fetch route that checks only ViewChannel permission instead of requiring ReadMessageHistory. Attackers with ViewChannel access but ReadMessageHistory denied can retrieve individual message content by ID, bypassing the intended history restriction enforced by bulk read routes.5h CVE-2026-195989.8 CRI

—

——0The Pods – Custom Content Types and Fields plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation via Authorization Bypass in all versions up to, and including, 3.3.9. The vulnerability exists because the pods_admin AJAX router funnels every access check — including the method allowlist, nonce verification, login enforcement, and capability gate — through pods_error(), which under the JSON meta-box-loader compatibility path only writes failures to the PHP error log and returns false instead of terminating the request, rendering all guards ineffective. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to escalate their privileges to Administrator or overwrite the password of any user account, including the site owner's, enabling complete site takeover, or perform another administrator action.1d CVE-2026-742484.3 MED

5.5%

——2OpenStack Octavia through 18.0.0 mishandles quality of service (QoS) policy authorization. By associating another project's QoS policy with an amphora, an authenticated user may prevent deletion of that policy. All Octavia deployments are affected.2d CVE-2026-196298.1 HIG

30.3%

——9A privilege escalation vulnerability exists in Tenable Security Center that allows a user with "Security Manager" role and "manage user" permission on a single group to modify users belonging to other groups. This bypasses the intended access control restrictions and enables unauthorized cross-group user management.2d CVE-2026-49989—

19.1%

——6CrateDB is a distributed SQL database. Prior to versions 6.2.8 and 6.3.2, any authenticated user can read or delete any blob whose SHA-1 digest they know, and can plant new blobs unconditionally, in any blob table, regardless of `GRANT`s. CrateDB has two ways to access blob storage: SQL (`SELECT ... FROM blob.<table>` and friends) and the blob HTTP API (`GET|PUT|DELETE /_blobs/{table}/{digest}`). The SQL path goes through `AccessControl`, which is what enforces privilege grants; that's why `SELECT digest FROM blob.secret_blobs` fails for a user who has no grants on the table. The HTTP path authenticates the request but never asks `AccessControl` whether the authenticated user is allowed to touch the table. So a user with no grants gets `MissingPrivilegeException` from SQL and `200 OK` plus the blob bytes from `GET /_blobs/secret_blobs/<digest>`. Deployments that don't use `BLOB TABLE` are unaffected. Authentication itself still works; the bug is strictly that being authenticated as anyone is treated as sufficient for any blob op. Versions 6.2.8 and 6.3.2 fix the issue.2d CVE-2026-730495.8 MED

9.4%

——3SiYuan versions before v3.7.4 contain an information disclosure vulnerability in the getAttributeViewBacklinks endpoint that consults the forbidden access list instead of the visibility list when filtering backlinks. Anonymous readers can supply a publicly visible database row identifier to discover hidden-tier documents that reference it, receiving the database name, row title, and document path of hidden documents.2d