dbcve.org
Information ExposureWeakness · CWE-200

CVE-2026-46427

HIGH · 7.7 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-27
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
83/100
Remediation priority · High
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
Budibase is an open-source low-code platform. Prior to 3.38.3, removeSecrets at packages/server/src/sdk/workspace/datasources/datasources.ts masks only datasource config fields whose schema type is DatasourceFieldType.PASSWORD. The Snowflake integration types its privateKey field as SENSITIVE_LONGFORM, which the filter skips. GET /api/datasources/:datasourceId lives on authorizedRoutes guarded by PermissionType.TABLE + PermissionLevel.READ. An authenticated BASIC user with any app role and call the endpoint and receive the full Snowflake PEM in plaintext. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.38.3.

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

The removeSecrets function in Budibase only filters datasource fields marked as DatasourceFieldType.PASSWORD, but fails to filter SENSITIVE_LONGFORM fields. This allows authenticated BASIC users with TABLE READ permissions to call GET /api/datasources/:datasourceId and receive Snowflake private keys (PEM format) in plaintext, as the privateKey field uses SENSITIVE_LONGFORM typing which is not filtered.

MitigationUpgrade to Budibase version 3.38.3 or later where the removeSecrets function has been updated to also filter SENSITIVE_LONGFORM field types.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

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
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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 checks

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

  1. Identify Budibase version
    Check your Budibase installation version by querying the /api/self/public endpoint or checking the package.json/VERSION file in the Budibase installation directory
    Affected if Version is earlier than 3.38.3 (the removeSecrets function in these versions does not filter SENSITIVE_LONGFORM fields)
  2. Locate configured datasources
    Query the GET /api/datasources/:datasourceId endpoint or inspect the datasources configuration in your Budibase database/ storage
    Affected if A datasource exists that uses SENSITIVE_LONGFORM typing for fields containing sensitive data (such as Snowflake with a privateKey field) and the removeSecrets function has not filtered these fields
  3. Verify SENSITIVE_LONGFORM field exposure
    As a BASIC user with TABLE READ permission, call GET /api/datasources/:datasourceId and examine the response JSON for plaintext sensitive field values in fields typed as SENSITIVE_LONGFORM
    Affected if The response contains plaintext sensitive data (such as PEM-formatted private keys) that should have been removed by removeSecrets because SENSITIVE_LONGFORM filtering is missing
  4. Check for Snowflake datasources
    List all configured datasources and identify any using the Snowflake connector, then inspect their field definitions for the privateKey field
    Affected if A Snowflake datasource exists where the privateKey field uses SENSITIVE_LONGFORM typing and is returned in plaintext to users with TABLE READ access

You are affected if your Budibase version is earlier than 3.38.3 AND you have datasources with SENSITIVE_LONGTEXT fields (such as Snowflake private keys) that are returned in plaintext to BASIC users with TABLE READ permissions.

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
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade to Budibase version 3.38.3 or later where the removeSecrets function has been updated to also filter SENSITIVE_LONGFORM field types.

Recommended fix High confidence

3.38.3

  1. Identify the current Budibase installation version using the platform's version check command or admin interface
  2. Plan maintenance window for the upgrade
  3. Back up the current Budibase installation including database and configuration
  4. Upgrade Budibase to version 3.38.3 or later by following the official upgrade documentation
  5. After upgrade, verify the version number matches the expected fixed release
  6. Test the /api/datasources/:datasourceId endpoint with a BASIC user role to confirm secrets are now properly masked in the response
  7. Specifically verify that Snowflake datasource privateKey field is no longer returned in plaintext

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

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation1.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
7.0 hours of engineering $1,190
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,904.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-46427 — 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-2026-46427 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