CVE-2026-86863
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
pgAdmin 4: Authentication bypass via a client-controlled identity header in Webserver authentication mode
rank 25 = 0 + 25 + 0 + 0 + 0
rank@v1 · scheduled
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.00358 · without this subject the record ranks 25
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 9.8, from the CNA · without this subject the record ranks 0
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 25
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
0 products in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 25
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 25
$17,900 = $4.99M incident cost x 1 exposure x 0.00358 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
This record is one instance of CWE-290, authentication bypass by spoofing. The index holds 745 prior instances of this class, 5 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. taxonomy@v1
Running pgadmin.org pgAdmin 4? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (needs a Practitioner account)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
AcceptDeferPatch by…Not affectedMitigatedChoose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
Attack path
What it is stated by the CNA
pgAdmin 4's Webserver authentication source is intended to accept an identity asserted by the web server or reverse proxy in front of pgAdmin, delivered through the WSGI/CGI environment. WebserverAuthentication.get_user() read config.WEBSERVER_REMOTE_USER from request.environ and, when that returned nothing, fell back to reading the same name directly from the inbound HTTP request headers via request.headers.get(). An inbound HTTP header is written by whoever sends the request, so any client able to reach pgAdmin could supply that header itself and be authenticated as any username it named, including an existing Administrator, without presenting a password or any other credential. receipt
Read the rest of the CNA's description
The environment lookup could also be satisfied by a client-supplied header whenever WEBSERVER_REMOTE_USER was configured to an HTTP_-prefixed or hyphenated name such as HTTP_X_FORWARDED_USER or X-Forwarded-User, since WSGI servers place inbound headers into the environment under exactly those names. Deployments are affected only when 'webserver' is enabled in AUTHENTICATION_SOURCES. The fix distinguishes a genuine CGI/WSGI variable from a header-derived one and implicitly trusts only the former. A header-asserted identity is now accepted only when the operator explicitly opts in via WEBSERVER_REMOTE_USER_FROM_HEADER, the request arrives from a peer listed in WEBSERVER_TRUSTED_PROXIES, and, when configured, a shared secret supplied in WEBSERVER_SHARED_SECRET_HEADER matches WEBSERVER_SHARED_SECRET under a constant-time comparison. The trusted-peer check deliberately reads the real socket peer address rather than request.remote_addr, because ProxyFix rewrites the latter from the client-controlled X-Forwarded-For header and would otherwise allow an attacker to claim to be the trusted proxy. As defence in depth, login() now refuses any account whose auth_source is not 'webserver', so a misconfigured trust gate cannot be used to assume an internal or LDAP account. This issue affects pgAdmin 4: from 6.2 before 9.18.
NVD's analysis a second authority
- weakness
- CWE-290; CWE-807
- also scored by
- 9.3 CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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:X · 9.8…
check it yourself github.com receipt
Movement
Only one observation of this value is held, so there is no movement to show yet.
The full biography
The record had been public for 1 day when this index was last written.
The pattern, elsewhere
This record is one instance of CWE-290, authentication bypass by spoofing. The index holds 745 prior instances of this class, 5 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. [email protected]
"Matches n of m" counts the attributes the two records can both be compared on: the CVSS metrics they share a version of, any weakness class beyond this one, and the vendor. fit-rules@v1
745 records in this class held. The six above are drawn from the ones CISA has listed as exploited, ranked by how much of the record matches this one. That is why every one of them is KEV-listed: the pool is, so the colour on those spokes says nothing the pool has not already said.
No curated product neighbourhood is held for this product, so the records above are the nearest this index can name. The neighbourhood table covers a small set of products and is extended by hand.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
None. No alias set, and nothing in the corpus cites this identifier or shares its product family within 60 days.
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2026-86863.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.