Skip to content

pgadmin4 has a Meta-Command Filter Command Execution

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Dec 11, 2025 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Dec 12, 2025

Package

pip pgadmin4 (pip)

Affected versions

< 9.11

Patched versions

9.11

Description

The PLAIN restore meta-command filter introduced in pgAdmin as part of the fix for CVE-2025-12762 does not detect meta-commands when a SQL file begins with a UTF-8 Byte Order Mark (EF BB BF) or other special byte sequences. The implemented filter uses the function has_meta_commands(), which scans raw bytes using a regular expression. The regex does not treat the bytes as ignorable, so meta-commands such as \\! remain undetected. When pgAdmin invokes psql with --file, psql strips the bytes and executes the command. This can result in remote command execution during a restore operation.

References

Published by the National Vulnerability Database Dec 11, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Dec 11, 2025
Reviewed Dec 12, 2025
Last updated Dec 12, 2025

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:L

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(25th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2025-13780

GHSA ID

GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.