PostgreSQLDatabase / datastore
CVE-2020-14349
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 · uneditedIt was found that PostgreSQL versions before 12.4, before 11.9 and before 10.14 did not properly sanitize the search_path during logical replication. An authenticated attacker could use this flaw in an attack similar to CVE-2018-1058, in order to execute arbitrary SQL command in the context of the user used for replication.
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 12.4, 11.9, and 10.14 fail to properly sanitize the search_path during logical replication. An authenticated attacker can exploit this to execute arbitrary SQL commands in the context of the replication user, similar to CVE-2018-1058.
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
>= 10.0, < 10.14>= 11.0, < 11.9>= 12.0, < 12.4= 15.1= 15.2CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/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.
-
Identify installed PostgreSQL versionRun `psql --version` or `SELECT version();` to determine the exact version numberAffected if Version is 10.x before 10.14, 11.x before 11.9, or 12.x before 12.4
-
Verify logical replication is configuredCheck for any publications or subscriptions: query `pg_publication` catalog or run `\dRp` in psql for publications and `\dRs` for subscriptionsAffected if Logical replication publications or subscriptions exist on the database
-
Confirm replication user privilegesQuery `SELECT rolname FROM pg_roles WHERE rolreplication = true;` to identify replication rolesAffected if Any user has replication role privileges and the PostgreSQL version falls in the vulnerable range
-
Inspect search_path settingRun `SHOW search_path;` as the replication user to verify current schema search pathAffected if Search_path includes vulnerable schemas and logical replication is active on an affected version
You are affected if running PostgreSQL version 10.x before 10.14, 11.x before 11.9, or 12.x before 12.4 AND logical replication is configured with a replication user.
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 data10.1411.912.4
Upgrade PostgreSQL to version 12.4, 11.9, 10.14 or later to remediate the search_path sanitization flaw in logical replication.
Fix this in PostgreSQL
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 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 $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-14349 — 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-2020-14349 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