CVE-2026-47379
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 · uneditedNocoDB is software for building databases as spreadsheets. Prior to 2026.05.1, the shared-view password check fell back to strict-equality (===) comparison for legacy plaintext passwords, leaking the password's length and per-character prefix through response timing. This vulnerability is fixed in 2026.05.1.
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 confidenceNocoDB shared-view password authentication uses strict equality (===) comparison for legacy plaintext passwords, which leaks information through response timing. The === operator short-circuits on first character mismatch, allowing attackers to determine password length and incrementally discover the password prefix by measuring response times across character variations.
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
- None
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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 NocoDB versionCheck the installed NocoDB version via package.json, docker image tag, or the /api/v1/meta/version endpoint if exposedAffected if Version is earlier than 2026.05.1 (the patched release)
-
Locate shared-view password verification codeSearch the codebase for files handling shared-view authentication; look for password verification logic in routes related to 'shared-view' or 'sharedBase'Affected if Password comparison code exists in shared-view authentication paths
-
Inspect password comparison methodExamine the password verification function for shared views; look for direct use of === or == operators for comparing entered password against stored passwordAffected if Code uses === or == directly on password strings without constant-time comparison (e.g., crypto.timingSafeEqual, subtle.timingSafeEqual, or custom constant-time function)
-
Check for legacy plaintext password storageReview database schema or config for how shared-view passwords are stored; check if they are stored in plaintext rather than hashedAffected if Shared-view passwords are stored in plaintext and compared using direct string equality
Your environment is affected if you run NocoDB version earlier than 2026.05.1 and the shared-view password authentication code uses === or == operators instead of constant-time comparison functions.
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 · scopedUpgrade to NocoDB version 2026.05.1 or later, which implements constant-time comparison for legacy passwords. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement a constant-time string comparison function to replace the === operator in the password verification logic.
2026.05.1
- Upgrade NocoDB to version 2026.05.1 or later to resolve the timing-based information disclosure vulnerability in shared-view password checking.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-47379 — 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-2026-47379 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