CVE-2026-8838
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 · uneditedUnsafe use of Python's eval() on server-received data in the vector_in() function in amazon-redshift-python-driver before 2.1.14 allows a rogue server or man-in-the-middle actor to execute arbitrary code on the client. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to version 2.1.14.
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 confidenceThe amazon-redshift-python-driver before version 2.1.14 contains a code injection vulnerability in the vector_in() function, which uses Python's unsafe eval() on data received from the Redshift server. A malicious server or man-in-the-middle attacker can send specially crafted data that, when evaluated, executes arbitrary code on the client.
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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 the installed amazon-redshift-python-driver versionRun `pip show amazon-redshift-python-driver` or `pip list | grep redshift` to see the installed versionAffected if The version listed is earlier than 2.1.14 (e.g., 2.1.13, 2.1.0, 1.x.x)
-
Identify use of the vector_in() method in your codebaseSearch your application code for calls to `vector_in()` method, for example: grep -r "vector_in" or inspect SQL queries that may invoke this driver methodAffected if Your code or queries call the vector_in() method on the Redshift driver
-
Verify network communication to Redshift serversReview your application logs or network traces to confirm connections to Amazon Redshift databases are activeAffected if Your application connects to Redshift servers, especially over untrusted networks where a MITM attack could occur
-
Check for third-party or shared Redshift connectionsInspect any shared libraries, ORM configurations, or data pipeline tools that use the amazon-redshift-python-driverAffected if Libraries or tools in your environment depend on the amazon-redshift-python-driver and may invoke vector_in()
You are affected if you have amazon-redshift-python-driver version before 2.1.14 AND your application uses the vector_in() method to query Redshift databases.
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 amazon-redshift-python-driver to version 2.1.14 or later to eliminate the unsafe eval() usage in vector_in().
amazon-redshift-python-driver version 2.1.14
- Identify the current version of amazon-redshift-python-driver in your environment by running: pip show amazon-redshift-python-driver or checking your requirements file
- Upgrade to the fixed version by running: pip install amazon-redshift-python-driver==2.1.14
- Verify the upgrade was successful by running: pip show amazon-redshift-python-driver
- Test your application to ensure the upgrade does not introduce any regressions
- Regenerate and redistribute any pinned requirement files if applicable
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-8838 — 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-2026-8838 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