CVE-2018-14668
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 · uneditedIn ClickHouse before 1.1.54388, "remote" table function allowed arbitrary symbols in "user", "password" and "default_database" fields which led to Cross Protocol Request Forgery Attacks.
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 'remote' table function in ClickHouse prior to 1.1.54388 did not properly sanitize or validate input in the 'user', 'password', and 'default_database' fields, allowing arbitrary symbol injection. This insufficient input validation enabled Cross Protocol Request Forgery (CPSR) attacks, where an attacker could manipulate connection parameters to trigger unintended requests to arbitrary hosts or bypass access controls.
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< 1.1.54388CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 installed ClickHouse versionRun 'clickhouse-client --version' or 'clickhouse-server --version' to get the version number. Alternatively, query 'SELECT version()' via clickhouse-client.Affected if The version number is less than 1.1.54388 (for example, 1.1.54380, 1.1.54384, etc.)
-
Verify remote table function is accessibleExecute 'SELECT * FROM remote('example.com', 'system', 'users') LIMIT 1' via clickhouse-client. This tests if the remote table function can make outbound connections.Affected if The query executes without permission errors, indicating the remote function is available to the current user.
-
Check user permissions for remote functionQuery 'SELECT * FROM system.users' and 'SELECT * FROM system.grants' to identify which users have privileges that allow use of the remote table function.Affected if Non-admin or untrusted users have permissions to execute remote table function queries.
-
Review network exposure of ClickHouse serviceCheck ClickHouse configuration files (typically in /etc/clickhouse-server/) for 'listen_host' settings and verify firewall rules or binding addresses.Affected if ClickHouse listens on public or untrusted network interfaces (0.0.0.0) without restricted access.
You are affected if ClickHouse version is below 1.1.54388 AND the remote table function is accessible to users who could inject arbitrary connection parameters.
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 data1.1.54388
Upgrade ClickHouse to version 1.1.54388 or later which properly validates input in the remote table function. Until upgraded, restrict network access to ClickHouse servers and avoid exposing the remote table function to untrusted users.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,648.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-14668 — 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-2018-14668 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