Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.38% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-50735High confidence
To exploit the issue an attacker must be able to direct a subscription at an endpoint they control
EnterpriseDB · pglogical
6.1MediumCVSS 4.0
Scheduled
Fix not verifiedMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs EnterpriseDB pglogical and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Distribution package intelligence
5 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | pglogical | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | pglogical | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | pglogical | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2.4.8-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | pglogical | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2.4.8-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | pglogical | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
pglogical's apply worker does not sufficiently validate the length of certain fields in incoming replication protocol messages before copying them, resulting in an out-of-bounds read. A party acting as the publisher for a subscription, for example a non-PostgreSQL endpoint that speaks the pglogical replication protocol, can return crafted messages that cause the subscriber's apply worker to read beyond the bounds of an allocated buffer, disclosing adjacent process memory or crashing the worker. To exploit the issue an attacker must be able to direct a subscription at an endpoint they control. In default installations this requires privileges normally reserved for a superuser, so the issue is most relevant to managed deployments where the ability to create subscriptions has been delegated to non-superuser roles.
What
pglogical's apply worker does not sufficiently validate the length of certain fields in incoming replication protocol messages before copying them, resulting in an out-of-bounds read. A party acting as the publisher for a subscription, for example a non-PostgreSQL endpoint that speaks the pglogical replication protocol, can return crafted messages that cause the subscriber's apply worker to read beyond the bounds of an allocated buffer, disclosing adjacent process memory or crashing the worker. To exploit the issue an attacker must be able to direct a subscription at an endpoint they control. In default installations this requires privileges normally reserved for a superuser, so the issue is most relevant to managed deployments where the ability to create subscriptions has been delegated to non-superuser roles.
Why
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
What
pglogical's apply worker does not sufficiently validate the length of certain fields in incoming replication protocol messages before copying them, resulting in an out-of-bounds read. A party acting as the publisher for a subscription, for example a non-PostgreSQL endpoint that speaks the pglogical replication protocol, can return crafted messages that cause the subscriber's apply worker to read beyond the bounds of an allocated buffer, disclosing adjacent process memory or crashing the worker. To exploit the issue an attacker must be able to direct a subscription at an endpoint they control. In default installations this requires privileges normally reserved for a superuser, so the issue is most relevant to managed deployments where the ability to create subscriptions has been delegated to non-superuser roles.
Why
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Out-of-bounds Read → disrupt the affected service
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-125 ↗
CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read. The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VINoneVulnerable-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VAHighVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- pglogical: 2 < 2.4.8
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 28 Jul 2026 · Last source change 28 Jul 2026, 19:02 UTC · CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-49935
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: added vendor advisory: enterprisedb.com/cve202650735.enterprisedb.com ↗
- Before
- no authoritative guidance recorded
- After
- vendor advisory: enterprisedb.com/cve202650735
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.