Summary
A SQL injection vulnerability exists in Rucio versions 1.30.0 and later before 35.8.5, 38.5.5, 39.4.2, and 40.1.1, in FilterEngine.create_postgres_query(). This allows any authenticated Rucio user to execute arbitrary SQL against the PostgreSQL metadata database through the DID search endpoint (GET /dids//dids/search). When the postgres_meta metadata plugin is configured, attacker-controlled filter keys and values are interpolated directly into raw SQL strings via Python .format(), then passed to psycopg3's sql.SQL() which treats the string as trusted SQL syntax.
Depending on the database privileges assigned to the service account, exploitation can expose sensitive tables, modify or delete metadata, access server-side files, or achieve code execution through PostgreSQL features such as COPY ... FROM PROGRAM. This issue affects deployments that explicitly use the postgres_meta metadata plugin. This vulnerability has been fixed in versions 35.8.5, 38.5.5, 39.4.2, and 40.1.1.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.9): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.9 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.9 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-02). 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)14 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 total (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