PostgreSQLDatabase / datastore
CVE-2016-0768
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 · uneditedPostgreSQL PL/Java after 9.0 does not honor access controls on large objects.
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 confidencePostgreSQL PL/Java (procedural language for Java) versions after 9.0 fail to enforce access controls on large object (LO) operations. This allows Java functions executed within PL/Java to bypass PostgreSQL's permission system for large objects, potentially enabling unauthorized read/write access to binary data stored as large objects.
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
<= 9.0CVSS 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:3.0/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.
-
Confirm PL/Java extension is installedConnect to PostgreSQL and run: SELECT extname, extversion FROM pg_extension WHERE extname = 'pljava';Affected if The extension exists in the database - this means the vulnerable component is present
-
Identify PL/Java versionRun: SELECT sqlj.java_handler('org.postgresql.pljava.internal.Version.getVersion') as version; or check the installed package version at the OS levelAffected if Version is 9.0 or earlier (or unpatched), indicating the access control bypass exists
-
Verify large objects are presentRun: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM pg_largeobject_metadata;Affected if Large objects exist in the database - this confirms a potential target for unauthorized access
-
Check large object permissions configurationRun: SELECT loid, perm FROM pg_largeobject_metadata JOIN pg_catalog.pg_largeobject_permissions USING (loid); or inspect the database's default large object permissionsAffected if No granular ACL checks are being enforced on large object operations from PL/Java functions - the bypass is active
You are affected if PL/Java is installed and its version is unpatched (9.0 or earlier), AND your database contains large objects that could be accessed without proper permission checks through PL/Java functions.
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/Java to a patched version that honors large object access controls. Additionally, restrict which users can create and execute PL/Java functions until the patch is applied.
Fix this in PostgreSQL
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,896.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-0768 — 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-2016-0768 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