PostgreSQLDatabase / datastore
CVE-2015-3167
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 · uneditedcontrib/pgcrypto in PostgreSQL before 9.0.20, 9.1.x before 9.1.16, 9.2.x before 9.2.11, 9.3.x before 9.3.7, and 9.4.x before 9.4.2 uses different error responses when an incorrect key is used, which makes it easier for attackers to obtain the key via a brute force attack.
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 pgcrypto extension in PostgreSQL versions prior to 9.0.20, 9.1.16, 9.2.11, 9.3.7, and 9.4.2 returns distinguishable error messages when an incorrect encryption key is provided versus other error conditions. This information leakage allows attackers to iteratively test key guesses, significantly reducing the effective search space for brute force key recovery attacks.
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
PostgreSQLDatabase / datastore
< 9.0.20>= 9.1, < 9.1.16>= 9.2, < 9.2.11>= 9.3, < 9.3.7>= 9.4, < 9.4.2
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 7.0= 8.0= 9.0
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
= 12.04= 14.04= 14.10= 15.04CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Check PostgreSQL versionRun `psql -V` or connect to the database and run `SELECT version();` to obtain the PostgreSQL server version numberAffected if The version is less than 9.0.20, or falls between 9.1.0-9.1.15, 9.2.0-9.2.10, 9.3.0-9.3.6, or 9.4.0-9.4.1
-
Verify pgcrypto extension is installedConnect to the database and run `SELECT * FROM pg_extension WHERE extname = 'pgcrypto';`Affected if The pgcrypto extension row is returned, indicating it is installed in the database
-
Identify pgcrypto usage in database schemaQuery system catalogs using `SELECT relname, attname FROM pg_attribute JOIN pg_type ON atttypid = pg_type.oid WHERE typname IN ('bytea', 'text') AND attrelid IN (SELECT oid FROM pg_class WHERE relkind = 'r');` and inspect application code for calls to pgcrypto functions such as pgp_sym_encrypt, pgp_pub_encrypt, encrypt, or gen_random_bytesAffected if Any tables contain columns or any application code uses pgcrypto encryption functions on sensitive data
A user is affected if they run a vulnerable PostgreSQL version AND have the pgcrypto extension installed AND use it to encrypt data, allowing unauthenticated attackers to distinguish key-related errors from other failures.
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 data9.0.209.1.169.2.11
Upgrade PostgreSQL to a patched version (9.0.20+, 9.1.16+, 9.2.11+, 9.3.7+, or 9.4.2+). Alternatively, ensure pgcrypto-encrypted data is protected by additional access controls and network segmentation to prevent unauthenticated attackers from triggering decryption attempts.
Fix this in PostgreSQL
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-3167 — 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-2015-3167 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