CVE-2026-61789

MEDIUMPre-NVD 6.16.1
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This medium-severity CVE scores 6.1 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.4% (33rd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source
Elevated

Also known asEUVD-2026-114181 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-j55q-p8qc-f6wg (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

6.1EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • CISA's Vulnrichment rates exploitation as PoC; EchelonGraph holds no exploit-code reference for it
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 6.1Exploit: No code on recordExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

DBHub is a database MCP server for Postgres, MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle, MariaDB, SQLite. Prior to 0.22.6, read-only SQL validation can be bypassed on the MySQL and MariaDB connectors. In src/utils/sql-parser.ts, scanSingleLineComment treats every double dash as a comment start, whereas MySQL and MariaDB require following whitespace, a control character, or the end of the line. The read-only check in src/tools/execute-sql.ts validates split statements with isReadOnlySQL, but src/connectors/mysql/index.ts and src/connectors/mariadb/index.ts execute the original string with multipleStatements enabled. A double dash followed by a non-whitespace character can therefore hide a subsequent write or destructive DDL statement from the validator while the database interprets the dashes as minus operators and executes both statements. Anyone able to influence the assistant's SQL, including through prompt injection in content the assistant reads, can bypass read-only mode to modify or drop database data, subject to the database account's privileges. PostgreSQL is not affected by this path because its double-dash parsing agrees with the checker and its connector executes individual split statements. This issue is fixed in version 0.22.6.

CVSS
6.1
EG Score
6.1MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
43
EG Risk 43/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity61% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 6.1 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation40% × 40%
EchelonGraph's fixed weight for EG-KEV Tier 3 (Elevated): a constant, not a probability.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.
Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.4%
EPSS %ILE
33rd
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (6.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
6.1 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source
EG Likelihood
0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-10). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track* at medium mission impactTrack at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

October 30, 2026

Last Modified

November 6, 2026

Advisory Details (4)

Auto-updated Oct 30, 2026
🔬 Proof of concept available. Patch available. Sources: github, github_pr, github_commit, github_release.
GitHub release Patch Available

v0.22.6

Patch available: bytebase/dbhub v0.22.6

https://github.com/bytebase/dbhub/releases/tag/v0.22.6
GitHub commit Patch Available

commit 872bb338f7d3 (bytebase/dbhub)

Patch available: bytebase/dbhub v0.22.6 (contains commit 872bb338f7d3)

https://github.com/bytebase/dbhub/commit/872bb338f7d31f6afe517a076ac3e3edafaaaf08
GitHub pull request Patch Available

fix: enforce read-only mode at the database engine, not just the keyword classifier

Patch available: bytebase/dbhub v0.22.6 (PR #342 merged 2026-06-24)

https://github.com/bytebase/dbhub/pull/342
GitHub advisoryMentions a patch (unverified)🟡 PoC Available

Read-only mode can be bypassed on the MySQL and MariaDB connectors, allowing arbitrary writes and DDL (for example DROP TABLE) through a query that passes the read-only check. DBHub treats "--" as a comment regardless of the next character, but MySQL and MariaDB only start a "--" comment when it is followed by whitespace, so a statement hidden after "--" is ignored by the read-only check yet executed by the database. The MySQL/MariaDB connectors run with multipleStatements enabled and execute th...

Read-only mode can be bypassed on the MySQL and MariaDB connectors, allowing arbitrary writes and DDL (for example DROP TABLE) through a query that passes the read-only check. DBHub treats "--" as a comment regardless of the next character, but MySQL and MariaDB only start a "--" comment when it is followed by whitespace, so a statement hidden after "--" is ignored by the read-only check yet executed by the database. The MySQL/MariaDB connectors run with multipleStatements enabled and execute the original query string. · Advisory · bytebase/dbhub · GitHub

https://github.com/bytebase/dbhub/security/advisories/GHSA-j656-3hf2-fvjc

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-61789(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
npm(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
@bytebase/dbhub—
  • every version up to 0.22.6: fixed in 0.22.6
—

Weakness Classification(2)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 8× in last 7d / 20× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-13 16:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  2. 2026-11-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  3. 2026-11-11 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  4. 2026-11-11 07:52 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  5. 2026-11-11 07:52 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-j55q-p8qc-f6wg · GitHub severity MODERATE
  6. 2026-11-10 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  7. 2026-11-09 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  8. 2026-11-08 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  9. 2026-11-07 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  10. 2026-11-06 17:28 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  11. 2026-11-06 17:28 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-j55q-p8qc-f6wg · GitHub severity MODERATE
  12. 2026-11-06 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  13. 2026-11-06 16:35 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  14. 2026-11-06 16:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-j55q-p8qc-f6wg · GitHub severity MODERATE
  15. 2026-11-05 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  16. 2026-11-04 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  17. 2026-11-04 01:57 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  18. 2026-11-04 01:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-j55q-p8qc-f6wg · GitHub severity MODERATE
  19. 2026-11-03 16:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  20. 2026-11-02 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  21. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  22. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  23. 2026-10-30 18:02 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-114181 · Source: ENISA EUVD
  24. 2026-10-30 17:27 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  25. 2026-10-30 16:20 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 6.1 MEDIUM
Show 1 more
  1. 2026-10-30 16:20 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Related CVEs(same product + same CWE)

Same product

2 shown

npm:@bytebase/dbhub

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-61789?
CVE-2026-61789 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 30, 2026. DBHub is a database MCP server for Postgres, MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle, MariaDB, SQLite. Prior to 0.22.6, read-only SQL validation can be bypassed on the MySQL and MariaDB connectors. In src/utils/sql-parser.ts, scanSingleLineComment treats every double dash as a comment start, whereas MySQL and…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-61789 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-61789 was published on October 30, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of November 6, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-61789 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-61789 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.4% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (33rd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-61789?
CVE-2026-61789 has a CVSS base score of 6.1 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-61789?
A fix for CVE-2026-61789 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-61789 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-61789

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-61789?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs