CVE-2026-48772 (GCVE-0-2026-48772)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-06-19 19:28 – Updated: 2026-06-19 19:28
VLAI
Title
ProxySQL: PROXY-Protocol-v1 UNKNOWN parses spoofed source IP, bypassing mysql_query_rules.client_addr ACL
Summary
ProxySQL is a proxy for MySQL and its forks, as well as PostgreSQL. In versions 2.0.0 through 3.0.8, the ProxySQL MySQL frontend accepts the `PROXY UNKNOWN <addr> <addr> <port> <port>\r\n` PP1 frame as a well-formed PROXY protocol header. The HAProxy PROXY protocol v1 specification says that when the protocol token is `UNKNOWN`, the receiver MUST ignore any address fields that follow it, because the proxy has declared it cannot determine the client identity. ProxySQL parses those address fields anyway via `sscanf` and writes the spoofed source address into the session's `addr.addr` field. From there it flows directly into the query-rule matcher, where the `client_addr` predicate decides routing and ACL. When `mysql-proxy_protocol_networks = '*'` (the default), any TCP peer can send a PP1 frame and choose any source IP claim. With that, any `mysql_query_rules` row pinned to a `client_addr` value is forgeable: the attacker writes the address they want to match into the PP1 line, and ProxySQL routes their query as if it came from that address. In practice this is a routing and ACL bypass. Real deployments use `client_addr` for read-write splitting (internal apps go to the primary, public traffic to read replicas), per-app schema pinning, and query-filter rules (DDL allowed only from admin CIDR, public queries blocked from dangerous patterns). An attacker that can reach the frontend port can forge their way into any of those routes. Version 3.0.9 patches this issue.
Severity
10 (Critical)
Assigner
References
2 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/sysown/proxysql/security/advis… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
| https://github.com/sysown/proxysql/releases/tag/v3.0.9 | x_refsource_MISC |
{
"containers": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "proxysql",
"vendor": "sysown",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 2.0.0, \u003c 3.0.9"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "ProxySQL is a proxy for MySQL and its forks, as well as PostgreSQL. In versions 2.0.0 through 3.0.8, the ProxySQL MySQL frontend accepts the `PROXY UNKNOWN \u003caddr\u003e \u003caddr\u003e \u003cport\u003e \u003cport\u003e\\r\\n` PP1 frame as a well-formed PROXY protocol header. The HAProxy PROXY protocol v1 specification says that when the protocol token is `UNKNOWN`, the receiver MUST ignore any address fields that follow it, because the proxy has declared it cannot determine the client identity. ProxySQL parses those address fields anyway via `sscanf` and writes the spoofed source address into the session\u0027s `addr.addr` field. From there it flows directly into the query-rule matcher, where the `client_addr` predicate decides routing and ACL. When `mysql-proxy_protocol_networks = \u0027*\u0027` (the default), any TCP peer can send a PP1 frame and choose any source IP claim. With that, any `mysql_query_rules` row pinned to a `client_addr` value is forgeable: the attacker writes the address they want to match into the PP1 line, and ProxySQL routes their query as if it came from that address. In practice this is a routing and ACL bypass. Real deployments use `client_addr` for read-write splitting (internal apps go to the primary, public traffic to read replicas), per-app schema pinning, and query-filter rules (DDL allowed only from admin CIDR, public queries blocked from dangerous patterns). An attacker that can reach the frontend port can forge their way into any of those routes. Version 3.0.9 patches this issue."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 10,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "CHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-348",
"description": "CWE-348: Use of Less Trusted Source",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
},
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-863",
"description": "CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-19T19:28:46.248Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/sysown/proxysql/security/advisories/GHSA-gw94-85m2-x8v2",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/sysown/proxysql/security/advisories/GHSA-gw94-85m2-x8v2"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/sysown/proxysql/releases/tag/v3.0.9",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/sysown/proxysql/releases/tag/v3.0.9"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-gw94-85m2-x8v2",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "ProxySQL: PROXY-Protocol-v1 UNKNOWN parses spoofed source IP, bypassing mysql_query_rules.client_addr ACL"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-48772",
"datePublished": "2026-06-19T19:28:46.248Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-05-22T19:39:05.357Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-06-19T19:28:46.248Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…