CVE-2023-47128: piccolo SQL Injection via named transaction savepoints

Should you act?

Critical and remotely reachable

No known exploitation yet, but it is network-reachable without credentials. This signal is computed from CISA KEV, EPSS and CVSS data; it is not an editorial verdict.

• Not in CISA KEV, but CISA’s SSVC assessment records a public proof-of-concept, so attack code exists.
• EPSS 0.8%, percentile 55: FIRST’s model estimates a 0.8% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, higher than 55% of all scored CVEs (moderate). EPSS is a probability, not a verdict.
• Remotely reachable with no login and no user interaction. If the vulnerable service is exposed to the internet, prioritize it.
• Only applies if your dependency tree includes piccolo (PyPI) < 1.1.1, fixed in 1.1.1. Check your lockfile, including transitive dependencies.

What it is

Piccolo is an object-relational mapping and query builder which supports asyncio. Prior to version 1.1.1, the handling of named transaction savepoints in all database implementations is vulnerable to SQL Injection via f-strings. While the likelihood of an end developer exposing a savepoints name parameter to a user is highly unlikely, it would not be unheard of. If a malicious user was able to abuse this functionality they would have essentially direct access to the database and the ability to modify data to the level of permissions associated with the database user. A non exhaustive list of actions possible based on database permissions is: Read all data stored in the database, including usernames and password hashes; insert arbitrary data into the database, including modifying existing records; and gain a shell on the underlying server. Version 1.1.1 fixes this issue.

From the GitHub advisory

Summary The handling of named transaction savepoints in all database implementations is vulnerable to SQL Injection as user provided input is passed directly to connection.execute(...) via f-strings.

Details

An excerpt of the Postgres savepoint handling:

In this example, we can see user input is directly passed to connection.execute without being properly escaped.

All implementations of savepoints and savepoint methods directly pass this name parameter to connection.execute and are vulnerable to this. A non-exhaustive list can be found below: - Postgres - - One - - Two - - Three - Sqlite - - One - - Two - - Three

Weakness type: CWE-89.

Product: piccolo (PyPI) · Assigned by: GitHub_M · Published: 2023-11-10

Affected and fixed versions

Severity scores

• Attack vector: network (remotely reachable)
• Attack complexity: low
• Attack requirements: none
• Privileges required: none (no login)
• User interaction: none

CVSS measures how bad a flaw is if exploited, not how likely exploitation is. Read it next to the exploitation data below.

Exploitation and urgency

• CISA KEV: not listed (no confirmed in-the-wild exploitation known to CISA).
• CISA SSVC assessment: exploitation poc, automatable yes, technical impact total.
• FIRST EPSS (model of 2026-10-21): 0.78% probability of exploitation activity in the next 30 days; percentile 55.

Timeline

• 2023-11-10 — CVE record published by GitHub_M
• 2023-11-12 — GitHub-reviewed advisory GHSA-xq59-7jf3-rjc6 published (critical)
• 2024-09-03 — CVE record last updated

Sources and references

Original sources first. Version and fix details should always be confirmed against the vendor or project advisory.

Vulnerability records

1. GitHub Advisory GHSA-xq59-7jf3-rjc6 github.com
2. CVE.org record CVE-2023-47128 cve.org
3. NVD entry CVE-2023-47128 nvd.nist.gov

Other references from the CVE record and advisory

1. github.com github.com
2. github.com github.com
3. github.com github.com

Critical PyPI advisories · Today’s Security Digest