CVE-2026-107314

MEDIUMPre-NVD 5.95.9
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This medium-severity CVE scores 5.9 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.3% (28th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source

Also known asEUVD-2026-94649 (ENISA EUVD)Source: ENISA EUVD

5.9EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.3%CVSS: 5.9Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

Upgrade to pgjdbc 42.7.14 or later, and replace a requireAuth value that excludes every method or names none with a positive list of the methods the server uses (from the CVE record's solution, PostgreSQL) — apply it.

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

CVSS v3
5.9
EG Score
5.9MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
27
EG Risk 27/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity59% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 5.9 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.3% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at every mission impact level.
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.
Action: Upgrade to pgjdbc 42.7.14 or later, and replace a requireAuth value that excludes every method or names none with a positive list of the methods the server uses (from the CVE record's solution, PostgreSQL). Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.3%
EPSS %ILE
28th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (5.9): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.9 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
5.9 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
EG Likelihood
0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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.

Upgrade to pgjdbc 42.7.14 or later, and replace a requireAuth value that excludes every method or names none with a positive list of the methods the server uses (from the CVE record's solution, PostgreSQL). 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

Published

October 7, 2026

Last Modified

October 8, 2026

Advisory Details (1)

Auto-updated Oct 7, 2026
Fix named in the CVE record's solution (PostgreSQL). Sources: github.
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)

requireAuth is silently not enforced when the value excludes every authentication method · Advisory · pgjdbc/pgjdbc · GitHub

https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/security/advisories/GHSA-rhp9-mr79-r74h

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
libpgjava42.7.10-1 ... 42.7.9-1 (9 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 8× in last 7d / 39× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 28th percentile
  2. 2026-10-31 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 28th percentile
  3. 2026-10-31 11:25 UTCOSV refresh
  4. 2026-10-30 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 28th percentile
  5. 2026-10-29 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 28th percentile
  6. 2026-10-28 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 27th percentile
  7. 2026-10-27 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 27th percentile
  8. 2026-10-26 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 27th percentile
  9. 2026-10-25 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 27th percentile
  10. 2026-10-25 14:54 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-24 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  12. 2026-10-23 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  13. 2026-10-23 08:44 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-21 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  15. 2026-10-20 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  16. 2026-10-19 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  17. 2026-10-18 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  18. 2026-10-18 05:07 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-10-17 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  20. 2026-10-16 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  21. 2026-10-15 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  22. 2026-10-14 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 16th percentile
  23. 2026-10-13 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 15th percentile
  24. 2026-10-12 16:38 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-12 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 15th percentile
Show 14 more
  1. 2026-10-11 20:14 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-11 16:59 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-11 15:00 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-11 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 15th percentile
  5. 2026-10-10 19:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 15th percentile
  6. 2026-10-10 18:20 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-09 20:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 15th percentile
  8. 2026-10-08 21:01 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-08 17:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 15th percentile
  10. 2026-10-08 15:24 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-08 14:56 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-07 23:27 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-07 23:06 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 5.9 MEDIUM
  14. 2026-10-07 23:06 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Related CVEs(same product + same CWE)

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-107314?
CVE-2026-107314 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 7, 2026. pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-107314 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-107314 was published on October 7, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 8, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-107314 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-107314 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.3% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (28th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-107314?
CVE-2026-107314 has a CVSS base score of 5.9 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-107314?
The CVE record's solution for CVE-2026-107314, written by its CNA PostgreSQL, names the fix: "Upgrade to pgjdbc 42.7.14 or later, and replace a requireAuth value that excludes every method or names none with a positive list of the methods the server uses."

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-107314

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-107314?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs