CVE-2026-4997
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 · uneditedA security flaw has been discovered in Sinaptik AI PandasAI up to 3.0.0. This affects the function is_sql_query_safe of the file pandasai/helpers/sql_sanitizer.py. Performing a manipulation results in path traversal. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 confidenceA path traversal vulnerability exists in the is_sql_query_safe function within pandasai/helpers/sql_sanitizer.py in Sinaptik AI PandasAI up to version 3.0.0. The function, intended to validate SQL queries for safety, fails to properly sanitize path traversal sequences, potentially allowing attackers to access files outside the intended directory through manipulated SQL inputs.
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
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed PandasAI versionRun 'pip show pandasai' or 'pip list | grep -i pandasai' to find the installed version of the PandasAI packageAffected if The installed version is 3.0.0 or lower (any version up to and including 3.0.0 is affected)
-
Locate the vulnerable sql_sanitizer.py fileFind the file pandasai/helpers/sql_sanitizer.py in your Python environment using 'python -c "import pandasai; print(pandasai.__file__)"' to get the package path, then navigate to helpers/Affected if The file exists in the installed package and contains the is_sql_query_safe function
-
Verify the is_sql_query_safe function implementationOpen pandasai/helpers/sql_sanitizer.py and inspect the is_sql_query_safe function for lack of path traversal validation (checking for ../ sequences or absolute paths)Affected if The function does not contain validation logic to reject path traversal sequences like ../ or absolute paths
-
Check if SQL query processing is enabledReview your application configuration or code that uses PandasAI to determine if SQL query features are being used (look for calls to functions that invoke is_sql_query_safe or process SQL inputs)Affected if Your application processes user-controlled SQL queries through PandasAI's sanitization functions
You are affected if you have PandasAI version 3.0.0 or lower installed and your application uses the is_sql_query_safe function to validate SQL queries that could contain path traversal sequences.
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.
From vendor dataImplement robust path validation and sanitization in the is_sql_query_safe function to reject path traversal sequences (e.g., ../, absolute paths) and ensure all file/directory references are constrained to expected boundaries.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-4997 — 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-2026-4997 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