CVE-2026-108963: databasement before 1.8.2 allows remote code execution because it runs certain commands (e.g., mariadb-dump) with a database name that can…
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 36/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 1.6% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 77.1% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: David-Crty databasement 1.8.2.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to David-Crty databasement 1.8.2 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
databasement before 1.8.2 allows remote code execution because it runs certain commands (e.g., mariadb-dump) with a database name that can be specified by any authenticated user. For example, --result-file=/app/public/index.php can write to index.php. In other words, quoting prevents OS command injection in mariadb-dump, but the argument injection alone is sufficient for code execution indirectly. NOTE: the project's composer.json file does not indicate an independently published databasement Composer package.
- Published
- Oct 11, 2026
- Updated
- Oct 13, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.6% · 77th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-88
Report tools
Action score
36
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 35 / 40 · 8.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 1.6%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · mitre
- 8.8
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Is your version affected? Check itNoroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
—
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (mitre). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
David-Crty databasement
- 1.0.0 and later · before 1.8.2affected · semver
Same product
david-crty: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-121939Databasement before 1.10.9 Account Takeover via OIDC Email Auto-Linking36Monitor
- CVE-2026-95654Databasement before 1.7.14 Authorization Bypass via Stale Invitation Token36Monitor
- CVE-2026-111875David-Crty Databasement Scheduled Restore SaveScheduledRestoreRequest.php authorization8Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-103533Oct 1, 2026 · David-Crty databasement database-servers API Endpoint RestoreRequest.php 511 path traversal4Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-103534Oct 1, 2026 · David-Crty databasement Snapshot Model snapshots SnapshotPolicy.view access control8Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| David-Crty databasement | 1.8.2 | Vendor (CNA) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
- Published
- Fix recordedsame day
- TodayNov 11, 2026+31 d
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
—
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
- CVE-2026-12193924 days apartDatabasement before 1.10.9 Account Takeover via OIDC Email Auto-Linking36Monitor
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-88 · Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-secondary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Parameter InjectionCAPEC-137likelihood: Medium · Medium
- Flash Parameter InjectionCAPEC-174likelihood: High · Medium
- Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious PayloadsCAPEC-41likelihood: High · High
- HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)CAPEC-460Medium
- OS Command InjectionCAPEC-88likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- SSVC exploitation— → poc
- Exploit maturity— → none
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (4 more)Show less
- github.com/David-Crty/databasement/blob/bcee6f0e62796337aaac26961c41f7eb9578dd76/composer.json#L3
- github.com/David-Crty/databasement/commit/22258e3eac594e653f9d04a69d93e83923d61499
- github.com/David-Crty/databasement/commit/2d2761905594a2fa2c3d81d48a7c8b6a1784862c
- github.com/David-Crty/databasement/security/advisories/GHSA-hm57-pvxc-4pcm
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.