dbcve.org
RucioApplication · Cern

CVE-2026-29090

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-06
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 35.8.5 / 38.5.5 or later.
See remediation →
94/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
### Summary A SQL injection vulnerability exists in Rucio versions 1.30.0 and later before 35.8.5, 38.5.5, 39.4.2, and 40.1.1, in `FilterEngine.create_postgres_query()`. This allows any authenticated Rucio user to execute arbitrary SQL against the PostgreSQL metadata database through the DID search endpoint (`GET /dids/<scope>/dids/search`). When the `postgres_meta` metadata plugin is configured, attacker-controlled filter keys and values are interpolated directly into raw SQL strings via Python `.format()`, then passed to `psycopg3`'s `sql.SQL()` which treats the string as trusted SQL syntax. Depending on the database privileges assigned to the service account, exploitation can expose sensitive tables, modify or delete metadata, access server-side files, or achieve code execution through PostgreSQL features such as COPY ... FROM PROGRAM. This issue affects deployments that explicitly use the postgres_meta metadata plugin. This vulnerability has been fixed in versions 35.8.5, 38.5.5, 39.4.2, and 40.1.1.

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 confidence

SQL injection in Rucio's FilterEngine.create_postgres_query() allows authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL via the DID search endpoint when the postgres_meta plugin is configured. User-controlled filter keys/values are directly interpolated into SQL strings using Python .format() and passed to psycopg3's sql.SQL(), which treats them as trusted SQL syntax.

MitigationUpgrade Rucio to version 35.8.5, 38.5.5, 39.4.2, or 40.1.1. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, disable the postgres_meta metadata plugin and restrict the database privileges assigned to the Rucio service account to limit blast radius.

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
RucioApplication
Affected:>= 1.30.0, < 35.8.5>= 36.0.0, < 38.5.5>= 39.0.0, < 39.4.2>= 40.0.0, < 40.1.1

CVSS 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
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check Rucio version
    Locate the installed Rucio version by inspecting the Rucio package metadata (e.g., via 'rucio --version', pip show rucio, or the version file in the Rucio installation directory). Compare the version against the affected ranges: < 35.8.5, >= 36.0.0 and < 38.5.5, >= 39.0.0 and < 39.4.2, or >= 40.0.0 and < 40.1.1.
    Affected if The installed version falls within any of the listed affected ranges.
  2. Verify postgres_meta plugin configuration
    Inspect Rucio configuration files (rucio.cfg or rucio.conf) and look for the 'metadata' or 'postgres_meta' plugin setting under the database or DID search configuration section. Check whether postgres_meta is explicitly enabled or set as the metadata plugin.
    Affected if The postgres_meta plugin is configured as the metadata backend for DID search.
  3. Confirm DID search endpoint accessibility
    Verify that the DID search endpoint (/dids/, search, or similar) is exposed and accessible to authenticated users in the Rucio deployment. This can be confirmed by reviewing the webserver configuration or API routing.
    Affected if The DID search endpoint is accessible to authenticated users and the postgres_meta plugin is in use.
  4. Check psycopg3 usage in FilterEngine
    Review the FilterEngine.create_postgres_query() method in the Rucio source code (located under the filter engine or database module) to confirm whether user-controlled filter keys or values are being interpolated using .format() into SQL strings before being passed to psycopg3's sql.SQL().
    Affected if The code shows direct interpolation of user input into SQL strings via .format() being passed to psycopg3.

You are affected if your Rucio version is in an affected range AND the postgres_meta metadata plugin is configured and accessible to authenticated users for DID search.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 35.8.5 / 38.5.5 / 39.4.2 or later
Fixed in 35.8.538.5.539.4.2
Interim mitigation

Upgrade Rucio to version 35.8.5, 38.5.5, 39.4.2, or 40.1.1. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, disable the postgres_meta metadata plugin and restrict the database privileges assigned to the Rucio service account to limit blast radius.

Recommended fix High confidence

Upgrade to 35.8.5 (for 1.30.x-34.x), 38.5.5 (for 36.x-37.x), 39.4.2 (for 39.x), or 40.1.1 (for 40.x) depending on your current major version

  1. 1. Identify the currently installed Rucio version using `rucio --version` or checking the installed package version
  2. 2. Determine the appropriate target version based on your current major version line: if on 1.30.x-34.x upgrade to 35.8.5; if on 36.x-37.x upgrade to 38.5.5; if on 39.x upgrade to 39.4.2; if on 40.x upgrade to 40.1.1
  3. 3. Review the Rucio upgrade documentation at https://rucio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/admin/upgrade.html
  4. 4. Create a full backup of the PostgreSQL metadata database before proceeding
  5. 5. Stop all Rucio services (daemons, REST API, etc.)
  6. 6. Upgrade Rucio using pip: `pip install rucio==<target_version>` or `pip install --upgrade rucio==<target_version>`
  7. 7. Run database migrations if required: `rucio migrate` or follow version-specific migration steps in the release notes
  8. 8. Verify the upgrade by checking `rucio --version` shows the target version
Caveat Review release notes for your target version for any configuration or API changes; major version upgrades (e.g., 1.x to 35.x) may require careful migration planning

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Rucio Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
13.0 hours of engineering $2,280
Get the upgrade done

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-29090 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-29090 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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