dbcve.org
PostgreSQLDatabase / datastore

CVE-2016-0766

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2016-02-17
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 9.1.20 / 9.2.15 or later.
See remediation →
94/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
PostgreSQL before 9.1.20, 9.2.x before 9.2.15, 9.3.x before 9.3.11, 9.4.x before 9.4.6, and 9.5.x before 9.5.1 does not properly restrict access to unspecified custom configuration settings (GUCS) for PL/Java, which allows attackers to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.

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 confidence

PostgreSQL versions before 9.1.20, 9.2.15, 9.3.11, 9.4.6, and 9.5.1 contain an access control flaw in the PL/Java procedural language extension where custom Grand Unified Configuration Settings (GUCS) are not properly restricted, potentially allowing authenticated attackers to escalate privileges through manipulation of PostgreSQL configuration parameters.

MitigationUpgrade PostgreSQL to version 9.1.20, 9.2.15, 9.3.11, 9.4.6, 9.5.1 or later. If PL/Java is not required, disable or uninstall the extension as a compensating control until upgrade can be completed.

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
Affected:>= 9.1.0, < 9.1.20>= 9.2, < 9.2.15>= 9.3, < 9.3.11>= 9.4, < 9.4.6= 9.5
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
Affected:= 12.04= 14.04= 15.10
Debian LinuxOperating system
Affected:= 7.0= 8.0

CVSS 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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Determine installed PostgreSQL version
    Run `psql --version` or `SELECT version();` to get the PostgreSQL version number
    Affected if The version falls within 9.1.0-9.1.19, 9.2.0-9.2.14, 9.3.0-9.3.10, 9.4.0-9.4.5, or 9.5.0
  2. Verify PL/Java extension is present
    Query `SELECT * FROM pg_extension WHERE extname = 'pljava';` or check for pljava files in the lib directory
    Affected if PL/Java extension is installed (the vulnerability only applies when PL/Java is present)
  3. Check for custom GUC settings defined in PL/Java
    Inspect the pg_pltemplate system catalog with `SELECT * FROM pg_pltemplate WHERE tmplname = 'pljava';` and check postgresql.conf for any pljava.* configuration entries
    Affected if Custom GUC entries are defined in the PL/Java template or configuration
  4. Confirm authentication method and user privileges
    Review pg_hba.conf and verify which users have access to execute PL/Java functions
    Affected if Non-superuser authenticated users can execute PL/Java code (the attacker needs authenticated database access to exploit this)
  5. Check for dangerous GUC parameter manipulation
    Review postgresql.conf for any `pljava.*` entries that could allow setting privileged parameters like `shared_preload_libraries` or `superuser_reserved_connections`
    Affected if PL/Java GUCs allow modification of critical PostgreSQL parameters that should be restricted

You are affected if running a vulnerable PostgreSQL version (9.1.x before 9.1.20, 9.2.x before 9.2.15, 9.3.x before 9.3.11, 9.4.x before 9.4.6, or 9.5.x before 9.5.1) AND the PL/Java extension is installed with configurable GUC settings accessible to non-superuser users.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to 9.1.20 / 9.2.15 / 9.3.11 or later
Fixed in 9.1.209.2.159.3.11
Interim mitigation

Upgrade PostgreSQL to version 9.1.20, 9.2.15, 9.3.11, 9.4.6, 9.5.1 or later. If PL/Java is not required, disable or uninstall the extension as a compensating control until upgrade can be completed.

Fix this in PostgreSQL Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-0766 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2016-0766 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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