CVE-2026-96633

HIGHPre-NVD 8.18.1
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

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

Score 8.1 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-10-30. The CNA's CVSS baseline 8.1; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: the CNA's CVSS, GitHub Security Advisory

Also known asGHSA-6vfx-w7q3-42gq (GitHub Security Advisories)

8.1EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 8.1Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability — apply it.

AdminNeo SQLite Database-List Drop Arbitrary File Deletion

Summary

AdminNeo allows an authenticated SQLite-mode user to delete arbitrary files writable by the PHP process through the database-list drop action. The SQLite driver validates file extensions when creating or renaming databases, but the database-list drop path passes submitted db[] values directly to unlink().

Originally reported by @slpoiuewalspoid-dotcom in Adminer: https://github.com/vrana/adminer/security/advisories/GHSA-6pg3-chwq-wgqc

Impact

An authenticated AdminNeo SQLite user with a valid CSRF token can submit an arbitrary relative file path in the database-list db[] field. If the PHP process can delete that path, AdminNeo unlinks it even when the file is not a SQLite database.

Root Cause

The database-list page accepts selected database names from the POST body and calls drop_databases():

if ($_POST["db"]) {
	queries_redirect(substr(ME, 0, -1), lang('Databases have been dropped.'), drop_databases($_POST["db"]));
}

In SQLite mode, drop_databases() attaches an in-memory database and unlinks each submitted path directly:

function drop_databases($databases): bool
{
	Connection::get()->close(); // to unlock file, doesn't work in PDO on Windows
	foreach ($databases as $db) {
		if (!@unlink($db)) {
			Connection::get()->setError(lang('File exists.'));
			return false;
		}
	}
	return true;
}

The same SQLite driver protects create and rename operations with check_sqlite_name(), which requires a .db, .sdb, or .sqlite extension:

function check_sqlite_name($name) {
	// avoid creating PHP files on unsecured servers
	$extensions = "db|sdb|sqlite";
	if (!preg_match("~^[^\\0]*\\.($extensions)\$~", $name)) {
		Connection::get()->setError(lang('Please use one of the extensions %s.', str_replace("|", ", ", $extensions)));
		return false;
	}
	return true;
}

The drop path does not apply an equivalent extension check or bind the submitted path to a known listed SQLite database.

POC

1. Start a complete AdminNeo application

Build and start AdminNeo from the audited source using the official standalone Docker image shape. The validation image copies the audited source tree into /var/www/html and starts Nginx HTTP server.

Log in through the SQLite entry point using a SQLite database path poc.sqlite.

2. Prepare a writable target file

Place a non-database file under a location writable by the AdminNeo PHP process. The validation used:

/var/www/html/poc-delete-target.txt

The same directory also contained a SQLite database:

/var/www/html/poc.sqlite

3. Submit the database-list drop request

Use the authenticated session and live CSRF token, but submit the non-database path as the selected database:

POST /?sqlite=&username= HTTP/1.1
Host: 
Cookie: 
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

db[]=/var/www/html/poc-delete-target.txt&all=&drop=Drop&token=

The request reaches drop_databases($_POST["db"]), and SQLite drop_databases() calls unlink() on the submitted non-database path.

After the request, the poc-delete-target.txt was deleted.

Suggested Fix

Apply the same target validation used by SQLite create/rename before deleting database files. At minimum:

  • Reject paths whose basename does not end in .db, .sdb, or .sqlite.
  • Bind db[] values to databases returned by AdminNeo's database listing instead of trusting submitted paths.
  • Resolve paths before deletion and reject traversal outside the expected SQLite database directory.
  • Consider requiring the current selected database path for delete operations instead of accepting arbitrary submitted file paths.

CVSS v3
8.1
EG Score
8.1HIGHhigh confidence
EG Risk
36
EG Risk 36/100

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)
Severity81% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.1 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0% × 40%
No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
—
EPSS %ILE
—
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 (8.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
8.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
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 fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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 30, 2026

Last Modified

October 30, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-96633(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
composeradminneo-org/adminneo @ 5.5.1 (fixes < 5.5.1)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Weakness Classification(1)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 3× in last 7d / 3× 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 07:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6vfx-w7q3-42gq · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.1
  2. 2026-11-01 07:37 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-30 23:45 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 8.1 HIGH

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-96633?
CVE-2026-96633 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 30, 2026. AdminNeo SQLite Database-List Drop Arbitrary File Deletion Summary AdminNeo allows an authenticated SQLite-mode user to delete arbitrary files writable by the PHP process through the database-list drop action. The SQLite driver validates file extensions when creating or renaming databases, but the…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-96633 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-96633 was published on October 30, 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 30, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-96633?
CVE-2026-96633 has a CVSS base score of 8.1 (the CNA's own assessment, by github_m; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-96633?
A fixed version for CVE-2026-96633 is listed under Patch Availability on this page: update to the version listed for your package. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-96633 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-96633

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-96633?

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