CVE-2026-28438
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 · uneditedCocoIndex is a data transformation framework for AI. Prior to version 0.3.34, the Doris target connector didn't verify the configured table name before creating some SQL statements (ALTER TABLE). So, in the application code, if the table name is provided by an untrusted upstream, it expose vulnerability to SQL injection when target schema change. This issue has been patched in version 0.3.34.
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 · moderate confidenceThe Doris target connector in CocoIndex (data transformation framework for AI) fails to validate table names before constructing ALTER TABLE SQL statements. When table names are sourced from untrusted upstream inputs, attackers can inject malicious SQL through the table name parameter during schema change operations, leading to arbitrary SQL execution on the database.
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< 0.3.34CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Identify CocoIndex versionRun 'pip show cocoindex' or check your dependency management system to find the installed version of the cocoindex packageAffected if The installed version is lower than 0.3.34
-
Confirm Doris connector usageInspect your CocoIndex pipeline configuration files or code to determine if the Doris target connector is being used for data operationsAffected if The Doris connector is actively configured and used in your data transformation pipeline
-
Check table name sourceReview the data flow that provides table names to the Doris connector ALTER TABLE operations; examine upstream data sources, configuration parameters, or user inputs that feed into table name fieldsAffected if Table names are sourced from untrusted or user-controlled inputs without validation before being passed to the Doris connector
You are affected if CocoIndex version is below 0.3.34 AND the Doris connector is in use AND table names originate from unvalidated/untrusted upstream inputs.
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 · scoped0.3.34
Upgrade to CocoIndex version 0.3.34 or later which includes table name validation. Until patched, implement strict allowlist-based input validation for table names and avoid using untrusted inputs in SQL statement construction.
0.3.34
- Verify current installed version of cocoindex (e.g., pip show cocoindex or check requirements.txt)
- Upgrade cocoindex to version 0.3.34 using your package manager (e.g., pip install cocoindex==0.3.34 or pip install -U cocoindex)
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the installed version matches 0.3.34
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,248.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-28438 — 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-2026-28438 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