PostgreSQLDatabase / datastore
CVE-2017-7547
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 versions before 9.2.22, 9.3.18, 9.4.13, 9.5.8 and 9.6.4 are vulnerable to authorization flaw allowing remote authenticated attackers to retrieve passwords from the user mappings defined by the foreign server owners without actually having the privileges to do so.
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 versions before 9.2.22, 9.3.18, 9.4.13, 9.5.8, and 9.6.4 contain an authorization flaw where remote authenticated attackers can retrieve passwords stored in foreign server user mappings without having proper privileges, allowing unauthorized access to sensitive credential data.
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
= 9.2= 9.2.1= 9.2.2= 9.2.3= 9.2.4= 9.2.5= 9.2.6= 9.2.7= 9.2.8= 9.2.9= 9.2.10= 9.2.11CVSS 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:3.0/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check the installed PostgreSQL versionRun `SELECT version();` or `psql --version` from the command lineAffected if The version is 9.2.x before 9.2.22, 9.3.x before 9.3.18, 9.4.x before 9.4.13, 9.5.x before 9.5.8, or 9.6.x before 9.6.4
-
Identify foreign servers with user mappingsQuery `SELECT srvname, usename FROM pg_user_mappings;` or `SELECT * FROM information_schema.user_mapping_options WHERE option_name LIKE '%password%';`Affected if Any foreign server user mappings exist that store credentials
-
Verify permissions on user mappingsCheck which database roles can access `pg_user_mappings` by running `SELECT * FROM pg_user_mappings;` with a low-privilege authenticated accountAffected if A user without OWNER or FOREIGN SERVER owner privileges can see password data in the output
-
Confirm password exposure in system catalogQuery `SELECT srvname, usename, umoptions FROM pg_user_mappings WHERE umoptions IS NOT NULL;` as a non-superuser roleAffected if Password values are visible in the umoptions field to unauthorized users
Your environment is affected if you run a vulnerable PostgreSQL version AND have foreign server user mappings configured with stored credentials accessible to non-privileged database users.
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 PostgreSQL to version 9.2.22, 9.3.18, 9.4.13, 9.5.8, 9.6.4 or later. If immediate patching is not possible, review and restrict access to foreign server user mappings and consider rotating any exposed credentials.
Fix this in PostgreSQL
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-7547 — 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-2017-7547 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