How severe is GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v?

GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v has a CVSS score of 9.1/10, rated CRITICAL. Immediate patching is strongly recommended.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v?

GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v affects the following packages: pgadmin4 (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v?

Update pgadmin4 to 9.11 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v in my PyPI dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for pgadmin4. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

How do I mitigate GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

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 does O3 Security protect against GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Is GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v actively exploited in the wild?

Yes. There are 2 known exploit references for GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v, including . All exploit code should only be run in an isolated sandbox environment for research or authorized testing — never against production systems without explicit written authorization.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v?

GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.9%, placing it in the 53th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v?

GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v is classified as Code Injection (CWE-94). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation. This is a high-impact weakness class that often enables remote code execution or data exposure.

When was GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v was published on December 11, 2025 and was last updated on December 12, 2025. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐍 PyPI

GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v

CRITICAL

pgadmin4 has a Meta-Command Filter Command Execution

Also known asCVE-2025-13780

Published

Dec 11, 2025

Updated

Dec 12, 2025

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

2 known

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.9%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk53th percentile+0.73%

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.

Blast Radius

1 pkg affected

🐍pgadmin4

Real-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

The PLAIN restore meta-command filter introduced in pgAdmin as part of the fix for CVE-2025-12762 does not detect meta-commands when a SQL file begins with a UTF-8 Byte Order Mark (EF BB BF) or other special byte sequences. The implemented filter uses the function has_meta_commands(), which scans raw bytes using a regular expression. The regex does not treat the bytes as ignorable, so meta-commands such as \\! remain undetected. When pgAdmin invokes psql with --file, psql strips the bytes and executes the command. This can result in remote command execution during a restore operation.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`pgadmin4`	all versions	9.11

Exploits & PoCs

Research use only. For defensive security, authorized penetration testing, and academic research only. Never execute exploit code against systems without explicit written authorization.

zeropwn/pgadmin4-9.10-CVE-2025-13780

Proof of concept for CVE-2025-13780

⭐ 14🍴 1Dec 2025

ThemeHackers/CVE-2025-13780

A comprehensive vulnerability scanner for CVE-2025-13780, a Remote Code

⭐ 3🍴 0Jan 2026

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for pgadmin4. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update pgadmin4 to 9.11 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v 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 pinpoints whether GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

The PLAIN restore meta-command filter introduced in pgAdmin as part of the fix for CVE-2025-12762 does not detect meta-commands when a SQL file begins with a UTF-8 Byte Order Mark (EF BB BF) or other special byte sequences. The implemented filter uses the function `has_meta_commands()`, which scans raw bytes using a regular expression. The regex does not treat the bytes as ignorable, so meta-commands such as `\\!` remain undetected. When pgAdmin invokes psql with --file, psql strips the bytes and executes the command. This can result in remote command execution during a restore operation.

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-fxmw-jcgr-w44v across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works