SQLFluff is a SQL linter. Prior to version 2.1.2, in environments where untrusted users have access to the config files, there is a potential security vulnerability where those users could use the library_path config value to allow arbitrary python code to be executed via macros. For many users who use SQLFluff in the context of an environment where all users already have fairly escalated privileges, this may not be an issue - however in larger user bases, or where SQLFluff is bundled into another tool where developers still wish to give users access to supply their on rule configuration, this may be an issue.
The 2.1.2 release offers the ability for the library_path argument to be overwritten on the command line by using the --library-path option. This overrides any values provided in the config files and effectively prevents this route of attack for users which have access to the config file, but not to the scripts which call the SQLFluff CLI directly. A similar option is provided for the Python API, where users also have a greater ability to further customise or override configuration as necessary. Unless library_path is explicitly required, SQLFluff maintainers recommend using the option --library-path none when invoking SQLFluff which will disable the library-path option entirely regardless of the options set in the configuration file or via inline config directives. As a workaround, limiting access to - or otherwise validating configuration files before they are ingested by SQLFluff will provides a similar effect and does not require upgrade.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it