CVE-2026-7428
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 · uneditedPrior to 2025-11-03, well-intended users of Terraform or REST API for Google Cloud AlloyDB for PostgreSQL could have created clusters with an insecure default password which could have been exploited by a remote attacker to gain full administrative access to the database. Exploitation required network access to the AlloyDB cluster and was limited to Terraform or the REST API, as other clients blocked it.
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 confidenceGoogle Cloud AlloyDB for PostgreSQL clusters provisioned via Terraform or REST API prior to November 3, 2025 could be created with an insecure default password. This vulnerability allowed remote attackers with network access to the cluster to gain full administrative database access, as the weak default credential was accepted by these specific APIs despite being blocked by other clients.
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:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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:Amber
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.
-
List all AlloyDB clusters in your projectUse `gcloud alloydb clusters list --region=REGION` or check via Google Cloud Console to inventory all AlloyDB clustersAffected if Any AlloyDB clusters exist that were created before November 3, 2025 using Terraform or REST API
-
Check cluster creation timestampRun `gcloud alloydb clusters describe CLUSTER_NAME --region=REGION` and inspect the `createTime` fieldAffected if The cluster's createTime is before 2025-11-03
-
Determine cluster creation methodReview your infrastructure-as-code (Terraform state/logs) or Cloud Logging for `google_alloydb_cluster` resource creation events around the cluster's createTimeAffected if Cluster was created via Terraform or REST API rather than Cloud Console (which uses secure defaults)
-
Inspect cluster authentication configurationRun `gcloud alloydb clusters describe CLUSTER_NAME --region=REGION` and check the `userLabels` or `secondaryBandwidth` fields for any indication of default/generated credentials, or review IAM and database user settingsAffected if Database user authentication is configured with default or auto-generated credentials rather than user-provided strong passwords
A user is affected if they have AlloyDB clusters created before November 3, 2025 via Terraform or REST API that may still use the insecure default password from that period.
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 dataIdentify and rotate passwords for all AlloyDB clusters created via Terraform or REST API before the patch date, review access logs for unauthorized administrative activity, and ensure Terraform configurations specify strong custom passwords rather than relying on defaults.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7428 — 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-2026-7428 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