CVE-2023-41115
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in EnterpriseDB Postgres Advanced Server (EPAS) before 11.21.32, 12.x before 12.16.20, 13.x before 13.12.16, 14.x before 14.9.0, and 15.x before 15.4.0. When using UTL_ENCODE, an authenticated user can read any large object, regardless of that user's permissions.
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 confidenceEnterpriseDB Postgres Advanced Server (EPAS) contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in the UTL_ENCODE component. An authenticated database user can read any large object (LO) in the database without proper permission checks, allowing access to data the user should not have privileges to read.
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< 11.21.32>= 12.0.0, < 12.16.20>= 13.0.0, < 13.12.17>= 14.0.0, < 14.9.0>= 15.0.0, < 15.4.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Check EPAS versionRun the following SQL query to determine the installed EnterpriseDB Postgres Advanced Server version: SELECT version(); or check the product version through the EnterpriseDB installer or package manager.Affected if The version number is less than 11.21.32, or falls between 12.0.0 and 12.16.20, 13.0.0 and 13.12.17, 14.0.0 and 14.9.0, or 15.0.0 and 15.4.0.
-
Verify UTL_ENCODE extension is installedQuery the pg_extension catalog to check if UTL_ENCODE is installed: SELECT extname, extversion FROM pg_extension WHERE extname = 'utl_encode';Affected if The UTL_ENCODE extension is present in the database.
-
Check for large objects in the databaseQuery the pg_largeobject system catalog to see if any large objects exist: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM pg_largeobject;Affected if Large objects exist in the database that could potentially be accessed without authorization.
-
Review UTL_ENCODE permissions for database usersQuery the pg_proc and pg_namespace catalogs to check which users have execute permission on UTL_ENCODE functions: SELECT proname, pronamespace::regnamespace AS schema, proacl FROM pg_proc WHERE proname LIKE 'encode%' OR proname LIKE 'decode%';Affected if Non-privileged authenticated users have been granted execute permissions on UTL_ENCODE functions.
You are affected if your EPAS version falls within the vulnerable version ranges AND the UTL_ENCODE extension is installed and accessible to authenticated users who should not have broad large object access.
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.
dbcve · scoped11.21.3212.16.2013.12.17
Upgrade EPAS to version 11.21.32, 12.16.20, 13.12.16, 14.9.0, or 15.4.0 or later. As a temporary mitigation, review and restrict UTL_ENCODE permissions and large object access controls until patching can be completed.
Upgrade to EPAS 11.21.32, 12.16.20, 13.12.17, 14.9.0, or 15.4.0 depending on your current major version branch
- 1. Identify the currently installed EnterpriseDB Postgres Advanced Server version using: psql --version or SELECT version();
- 2. Based on your current major version, plan upgrade to the fixed release: 11.21.32, 12.16.20, 13.12.17, 14.9.0, or 15.4.0
- 3. Before upgrading, back up all databases and configuration files
- 4. Review EnterpriseDB upgrade documentation for your specific version jump
- 5. Perform the upgrade using pg_dumpall or EDB's migration tools as appropriate
- 6. After upgrade, verify ULT_ENCODE functionality works correctly
- 7. Test that permission controls on large objects are now properly enforced
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-41115 — 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-2023-41115 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