CVE-2026-1497
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 · uneditedIncorrect resolving of namespaces in composite databases in Neo4j Enterprise edition prior to versions 2026.02 and 5.26.22 can lead to the following scenario: an admin that intends to give a user an access to a remote database constituent "namespace.name" will inadvertently grant access to any local database or remote alias called "name". If such database or alias doesn't exist when the command is run, the privileges will apply if it's created in the future.
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 confidenceIn Neo4j Enterprise, when granting access to a composite database constituent with a namespaced name (e.g., 'namespace.name'), the privilege system incorrectly resolves the namespace, causing the access grant to also apply to any local database or remote alias named 'name'. If 'name' doesn't exist at grant time, the privilege remains dormant and activates if such a database/alias is created later.
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< 5.26.22>= 2025.01.0, < 2026.02CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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.
-
Confirm Neo4j edition is EnterpriseRun `CALL dbms.components() YIELD name, versions, edition RETURN name, versions, edition` or check your license. This vulnerability only affects Neo4j Enterprise, not Community.Affected if Edition is not Neo4j Enterprise (vulnerability does not apply to Community edition)
-
Verify installed version is within affected rangeRun `CALL dbms.components() YIELD versions RETURN versions[0]` to get the version number, then compare against: < 5.26.22 OR >= 2025.01.0 and < 2026.02Affected if Version is 5.26.22 or higher, OR 2026.02 or higher, OR below 5.26.22 but NOT in a 2025.x release (vulnerability does not apply)
-
Identify composite databases with namespaced namesRun `SHOW COMPOSITE DATABASES` or query composite databases via `CALL dbms.listComposites()`. Look for database names containing a dot (.) indicating a namespace, such as 'namespace.name'.Affected if No composite databases with namespaced names exist (no trigger for the vulnerability)
-
Review database access privileges for potential namespace leakageRun `SHOW DATABASE PRIVILEGES` and examine grants where the resource contains only the unqualified name portion (e.g., privilege granted to 'name' when a composite 'namespace.name' exists). Check if any privilege appears to apply to both a namespaced composite and a standalone database/alias with the same unqualified name.Affected if Database privileges exist that grant access to a name that matches the unqualified portion of a namespaced composite database
-
Check for local databases or remote aliases matching unqualified privilege namesRun `SHOW DATABASES` and `SHOW ALIASES FOR DATABASE` to list all local databases and remote aliases. Cross-reference any names that appear without a namespace against the privilege grants from step 4. A dormant privilege could activate if such a database or alias is created matching the unqualified name.Affected if Local databases or remote aliases exist with names matching the unqualified portion of a namespaced composite database privilege
You are affected if running Neo4j Enterprise in the vulnerable version range AND you have granted database privileges to composite databases with namespaced names, where the same unqualified name could match other databases or aliases.
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 · scoped5.26.222026.02
Upgrade Neo4j Enterprise to versions 2026.02 or 5.26.22 or later. Audit existing database privileges to identify and remediate any grants that may have been misconfigured due to this namespace resolution flaw.
Neo4j 5.26.22 or later (for 5.x line); Neo4j 2026.02 or later (for 2025.01.0 - 2026.01.x line)
- Identify current Neo4j version by running 'neo4j --version' or checking the neo4j.conf file
- If running a 5.x version prior to 5.26.22, upgrade to Neo4j 5.26.22 or later in the 5.x line
- If running version 2025.01.0 through 2026.01.x, upgrade to Neo4j 2026.02 or later
- After upgrade, verify the version is correct using 'neo4j --version'
- Review user privileges to ensure they were correctly applied according to intended namespace scoping
- Test that composite database namespace resolution works as expected - users with access to 'namespace.name' should NOT have access to unrelated 'name' databases/aliases
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-1497 — 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-2026-1497 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