dbcve.org
SQL InjectionWeakness · CWE-89

CVE-2026-57955

HIGH · 8.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-06-29
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
91/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable Zero-click 7 weeks old

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
SigNoz through 0.130.1 contains a SQL injection vulnerability that allows authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary ClickHouse queries by injecting URL-encoded quotes into the rule ID path parameter of the alert-history endpoints. Attackers can manipulate the unsanitized rule ID interpolated into ClickHouse queries to read all stored traces, logs, and metrics, or abuse the url() function to perform server-side request forgery.

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

SigNoz through 0.130.1 has a SQL injection vulnerability in the alert-history endpoints where the rule ID path parameter is directly interpolated into ClickHouse queries without sanitization. Attackers can use URL-encoded quotes to escape the parameter context and execute arbitrary queries, enabling data exfiltration of traces, logs, and metrics, plus SSRF via the ClickHouse url() function.

MitigationReplace direct string interpolation of the rule ID parameter with parameterized queries/prepared statements in all alert-history endpoint handlers, and implement proper input validation.

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
Low
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/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 SigNoz installation version
    Check the SigNoz version by querying the API status endpoint, checking the Helm chart or docker image tag, or reviewing deployment manifests
    Affected if The installed version is 0.130.1 or earlier (any version through 0.130.1)
  2. Confirm alert-history endpoints are accessible
    Check if HTTP endpoints matching /alert-history or similar patterns are exposed in the SigNoz deployment and reachable from the network
    Affected if The alert-history endpoint is accessible over the network without additional network segmentation
  3. Verify authentication is required for alert-history endpoints
    Test the alert-history endpoint without valid credentials or review the authentication configuration to confirm all requests require valid authentication
    Affected if The endpoint can be accessed without providing valid authentication credentials
  4. Inspect ClickHouse query construction for the rule ID parameter
    Review the SigNoz backend source code or configuration files to identify where the alert-history endpoint handles the rule ID path parameter and constructs ClickHouse queries
    Affected if The rule ID parameter is directly interpolated into SQL queries without parameterized binding or input sanitization

A user is affected if their SigNoz version is 0.130.1 or earlier AND the alert-history endpoint is accessible with or without authentication AND the rule ID parameter is not using parameterized queries.

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

Replace direct string interpolation of the rule ID parameter with parameterized queries/prepared statements in all alert-history endpoint handlers, and implement proper input validation.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

Latest SigNoz version after 0.130.1 (check GitHub releases for current stable)

  1. 1. Identify your current SigNoz installation version by checking the deployed containers or Helm chart version
  2. 2. Upgrade SigNoz to the latest stable release that succeeds version 0.130.1. Check the official SigNoz GitHub releases page (github.com/signoz/signoz) for the most recent version
  3. 3. After upgrading, verify that the alert-history endpoints no longer accept unsanitized input in the rule ID path parameter
  4. 4. Test that the SQL injection vulnerability is mitigated by attempting to inject URL-encoded quotes (e.g., %27, %22) into the rule ID parameter and confirming the query fails or is properly parameterized
  5. 5. Monitor for any unexpected outbound network requests that could indicate SSRF exploitation via the url() function
Caveat Review SigNoz release notes between 0.130.1 and the target version for any breaking changes to the alerting system or API

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

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,180
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-57955 — 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-2026-57955 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