CVE-2010-3781
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe PL/php add-on 1.4 and earlier for PostgreSQL does not properly protect script execution by a different SQL user identity within the same session, which allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges via crafted script code in a SECURITY DEFINER function, a related issue to CVE-2010-3433.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe PL/php add-on for PostgreSQL versions 1.4 and earlier contains a privilege escalation vulnerability where script execution is not properly protected when a different SQL user identity executes code within the same session. Specifically, SECURITY DEFINER functions, which run with the privileges of their owner rather than the calling user, can be exploited by authenticated remote users who inject crafted PHP script code to gain elevated privileges.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 1.4= 1.0= 1.1= 1.2= 1.3.1= 1.3.2= 1.3.3= 1.3.5CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify PL/php extension is installedQuery the PostgreSQL pg_extension catalog: SELECT * FROM pg_extension WHERE extname = 'plphp';Affected if No rows returned means PL/php is not installed and the system is not affected.
-
Determine installed PL/php versionRun: SELECT extversion FROM pg_extension WHERE extname = 'plphp';Affected if If version is 1.4 or earlier (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.x), the vulnerability is present.
-
Identify SECURITY DEFINER functionsQuery: SELECT proname, proowner::regrole FROM pg_proc WHERE prosecdef = true;Affected if If SECURITY DEFINER functions exist, they run with owner privileges and could be exploited.
-
Check for multiple SQL users in session contextReview application connections and session state: SELECT current_user, session_user;Affected if If session_user differs from current_user and PL/php code executes, the flaw can be triggered.
-
Verify authenticated remote user accessReview pg_hba.conf and user permissions: SELECT rolname, rolcanlogin FROM pg_roles WHERE rolname NOT LIKE 'pg_%';Affected if If untrusted SQL users have login access and PL/php is loaded, they could inject PHP code.
If PL/php version 1.4 or earlier is installed AND SECURITY DEFINER functions exist AND untrusted users can execute PHP code in the same session, the environment is affected by this privilege escalation vulnerability.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade PL/php to a version greater than 1.4, which contains proper script execution isolation between SQL user identities within the same session. Avoid using SECURITY DEFINER functions with untrusted input until the upgrade is applied.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-3781 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2010-3781 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data