A flaw was found in postgresql. Using an UPDATE ... RETURNING command on a purpose-crafted table, an authenticated database user could read arbitrary bytes of server memory. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality.

In PostgreSQL 9.3 through 11.2, the "COPY TO/FROM PROGRAM" function allows superusers and users in the 'pg_execute_server_program' group to execute arbitrary code in the context of the database's operating system user. This functionality is enabled by default and can be abused to run arbitrary operating system commands on Windows, Linux, and macOS. NOTE: Third parties claim/state this is not an issue because PostgreSQL functionality for ‘COPY TO/FROM PROGRAM’ is acting as intended. References state that in PostgreSQL, a superuser can execute commands as the server user without using the ‘COPY FROM PROGRAM’.

The interactive installer in PostgreSQL before 9.3.15, 9.4.x before 9.4.10, and 9.5.x before 9.5.5 might allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by leveraging use of HTTP to download software.

Improper neutralization of quoting syntax in PostgreSQL libpq functions PQescapeLiteral(), PQescapeIdentifier(), PQescapeString(), and PQescapeStringConn() allows a database input provider to achieve SQL injection in certain usage patterns. Specifically, SQL injection requires the application to use the function result to construct input to psql, the PostgreSQL interactive terminal. Similarly, improper neutralization of quoting syntax in PostgreSQL command line utility programs allows a source of command line arguments to achieve SQL injection when client_encoding is BIG5 and server_encoding is one of EUC_TW or MULE_INTERNAL. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.3, 16.7, 15.11, 14.16, and 13.19 are affected.

Incorrect control of environment variables in PostgreSQL PL/Perl allows an unprivileged database user to change sensitive process environment variables (e.g. PATH). That often suffices to enable arbitrary code execution, even if the attacker lacks a database server operating system user. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incorrect privilege assignment in PostgreSQL allows a less-privileged application user to view or change different rows from those intended. An attack requires the application to use SET ROLE, SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION, or an equivalent feature. The problem arises when an application query uses parameters from the attacker or conveys query results to the attacker. If that query reacts to current_setting('role') or the current user ID, it may modify or return data as though the session had not used SET ROLE or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION. The attacker does not control which incorrect user ID applies. Query text from less-privileged sources is not a concern here, because SET ROLE and SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION are not sandboxes for unvetted queries. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Client use of server error message in PostgreSQL allows a server not trusted under current SSL or GSS settings to furnish arbitrary non-NUL bytes to the libpq application. For example, a man-in-the-middle attacker could send a long error message that a human or screen-scraper user of psql mistakes for valid query results. This is probably not a concern for clients where the user interface unambiguously indicates the boundary between one error message and other text. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.

Incomplete tracking in PostgreSQL of tables with row security allows a reused query to view or change different rows from those intended. CVE-2023-2455 and CVE-2016-2193 fixed most interaction between row security and user ID changes. They missed cases where a subquery, WITH query, security invoker view, or SQL-language function references a table with a row-level security policy. This has the same consequences as the two earlier CVEs. That is to say, it leads to potentially incorrect policies being applied in cases where role-specific policies are used and a given query is planned under one role and then executed under other roles. This scenario can happen under security definer functions or when a common user and query is planned initially and then re-used across multiple SET ROLEs. Applying an incorrect policy may permit a user to complete otherwise-forbidden reads and modifications. This affects only databases that have used CREATE POLICY to define a row security policy. A…

Azure Database for PostgreSQL Flexible Server Extension Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Azure Database for PostgreSQL Flexible Server Extension Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability