CVE-2023-29195 is a medium-severity (CVSS 4.1) Improper Input Validation vulnerability in vitess.io/vitess. 1 public exploit reference exists, so weaponization risk is real. A fix is available for vitess.io/vitess — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Vitess VTAdmin users that can create shards can deny access to other functions
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2023-29195.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2023-29195 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 377,333 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
vitess.io/vitessReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Vitess is a database clustering system for horizontal scaling of MySQL through generalized sharding. Prior to version 16.0.2, users can either intentionally or inadvertently create a shard containing / characters from VTAdmin such that from that point on, anyone who tries to create a new shard from VTAdmin will receive an error. Attempting to view the keyspace(s) will also no longer work. Creating a shard using vtctldclient does not have the same problem because the CLI validates the input correctly. Version 16.0.2, corresponding to version 0.16.2 of the go module, contains a patch for this issue. Some workarounds are available. Always use vtctldclient to create shards, instead of using VTAdmin; disable creating shards from VTAdmin using RBAC; and/or delete the topology record for the offending shard using the client for your topology server.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐹Go | vitess.io/vitess | all versions | 0.16.2go get vitess.io/vitess@v0.16.2 |
Research use only. For defensive security, authorized penetration testing, and academic research only. Never execute exploit code against systems without explicit written authorization.
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for vitess.io/vitess, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update vitess.io/vitess to 0.16.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2023-29195 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like CVE-2023-29195 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to CVE-2023-29195. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2023-29195 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds CVE-2023-29195 across Go dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.