Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

NocoBase Vulnerable to SQL Validation Bypass via `sqlCollection:update` Missing `checkSQL` Call

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2026-41641CWE-89CWE-284

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: partly blocked.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
Partly blocked
CVSS
7.2
EPSS
1.8% Top 21%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2026-05-07
NocoBase is an AI-powered no-code/low-code platform for building business applications and enterprise solutions. Prior to version 2.0.39, the checkSQL() validation function that blocks dangerous SQL keywords (e.g., pg_read_file, LOAD_FILE,… More

NocoBase is an AI-powered no-code/low-code platform for building business applications and enterprise solutions. Prior to version 2.0.39, the checkSQL() validation function that blocks dangerous SQL keywords (e.g., pg_read_file, LOAD_FILE, dblink) is applied on the collections:create and sqlCollection:execute endpoints but is entirely missing on the sqlCollection:update endpoint. An attacker with collection management permissions can create a SQL collection with benign SQL, then update it with arbitrary SQL that bypasses all validation, and query the collection to execute the injected SQL and exfiltrate data. This issue has been patched in version 2.0.39.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2026-41641: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
High · 7.2 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with high privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.

Over the internetAdmin login neededNo user actionWorks reliablyFull compromise
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an administrator-level account.
    High
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.
    Unchanged
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationProof of concept

Public exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

1 found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2026-05-07
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2026-09-16
    F5 ships a rule
    NocoBase SQL Injection
  3. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of it
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  4. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of it
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2026-09-16, 132 days after the CVE was published.

2026-09-16New rule200102220Source
Added: signature 200102220 "NocoBase SQL Injection" (SQL-Injection, risk High), systems: Other Web Server. References: CVE-2026-41641.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.