ghsa-hq9p-pm7w-8p54
Vulnerability from github
Published
2025-06-11 14:44
Modified
2025-06-11 16:17
Severity ?
8.2 (High) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
Summary
pgjdbc Client Allows Fallback to Insecure Authentication Despite channelBinding=require Configuration
Details

Impact

When the PostgreSQL JDBC driver is configured with channel binding set to required (default value is prefer), the driver would incorrectly allow connections to proceed with authentication methods that do not support channel binding (such as password, MD5, GSS, or SSPI authentication). This could allow a man-in-the-middle attacker to intercept connections that users believed were protected by channel binding requirements.

Patches

TBD

Workarounds

Configure sslMode=verify-full to prevent MITM attacks.

References

  • https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sasl-authentication.html#SASL-SCRAM-SHA-256
  • https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7677
  • https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5802
Show details on source website

To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.postgresql:postgresql"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "42.7.4"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "42.7.7"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-49146"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2025-06-11T14:44:04Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-06-11T15:15:42Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\nWhen the PostgreSQL JDBC driver is configured with channel binding set to `required` (default value is `prefer`), the driver would incorrectly allow connections to proceed with authentication methods that do not support channel binding (such as password, MD5, GSS, or SSPI  authentication). This could allow a man-in-the-middle attacker to intercept connections that users believed were protected by channel binding requirements.\n\n### Patches\nTBD\n\n### Workarounds\n\nConfigure `sslMode=verify-full` to prevent MITM attacks.\n\n### References\n\n* https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sasl-authentication.html#SASL-SCRAM-SHA-256\n* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7677\n* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5802",
  "id": "GHSA-hq9p-pm7w-8p54",
  "modified": "2025-06-11T16:17:03Z",
  "published": "2025-06-11T14:44:04Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/security/advisories/GHSA-hq9p-pm7w-8p54"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-49146"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/commit/9217ed16cb2918ab1b6b9258ae97e6ede244d8a0"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5802"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7677"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sasl-authentication.html#SASL-SCRAM-SHA-256"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "pgjdbc Client Allows Fallback to Insecure Authentication Despite channelBinding=require Configuration"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.