What is CVE-2024-2044?

CVE-2024-2044 is Unsafe Deserialisation and Remote Code Execution by an Authenticated user in pgAdmin 4. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Path Traversal mapped to CWE-31 CWE-31; CWE-22 Path Traversal; CWE-502 Deserialization of Untrusted Data.

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2024-2044 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

64 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2024-2044 using CVSS 9.9, EPSS 79%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

Workarounds are not confirmed from current sources. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

criticalPath Traversalpublic exploit

CVE-2024-2044

CVE-2024-2044 — Unsafe Deserialisation and Remote Code Execution by an Authenticated user in pgAdmin 4

pgAdmin <= 8.3 is affected by a path-traversal vulnerability while deserializing users’ sessions in the session handling code. If the server is running on Windows, an unauthenticated attacker can load and deserialize remote pickle objects and gain code execution. If the server is running on POSIX/Linux, an authenticated attacker can upload pickle objects, deserialize them, and gain code execution.

Published Mar 7, 2024Updated Jun 17, 2026Sources: NVD, pgadmin.org (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, Red Hat (VEX)

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Reported

not confirmed by CISA

EPSS

79%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

pgadmin.org

2 products listed

CVSS base

9.9

critical · 2 sources

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade pgAdmin4 to 8.4 or later (pip advisory GHSA-rj98-crf4-g69w).

Red Hat VEX · CVE-2024-2044

fixed0affected0not affected1

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
pgadmin.org	pgAdmin 4	0 to < 8.4	Vulnerable
pip	pgAdmin4	< 8.4	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Changed

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
9.9	CVSS 3.1	critical	3.1	6	CNA, pgadmin.org (CNA), GHSA
5.9	CVSS 3.1	medium	—	—	Red Hat (VEX)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-31
CWE-22Path Traversal
CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-126 · Path TraversalCAPEC-139 · Relative Path Traversal

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

1 of the 5 sampled are weaponized

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /Linux.
Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable pgAdmin 4, pgAdmin4.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 64 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 9.9 (AV:N)
Jun 17, 2026 · NVD
2024
Initial · CVE published
Mar 7, 2024 · NVD
Added · GHSA-rj98-crf4-g69w published (critical)
Mar 7, 2024 · GitHub Security Advisory

References

8 on the record

github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/issues/7258
Issue Tracking, Vendor Advisory
lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/LUYN2JXKKHFSVTASH344TBRGWDH64XQV/
Mailing List, Vendor Advisory
www.shielder.com/advisories/pgadmin-path-traversal_leads_to_unsafe_deserialization_and_rce/
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Vendor Advisory
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-2044
NVD
github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/commit/4e49d752fba72953acceeb7f4aa2e6e32d25853d
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/advisories/GHSA-rj98-crf4-g69w
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-2044
Vendor Advisory
www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-2044
Vendor Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

pgadmin.orgevery CVE for this vendor
pipevery CVE for this vendor
Path Traversalsame class
CWE-31other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2024-2044 is Unsafe Deserialisation and Remote Code Execution by an Authenticated user in pgAdmin 4, a critical vulnerability affecting pgAdmin 4, pgAdmin4 from pgadmin.org, pip. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. Public exploit evidence is: 64 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 9.9 describes technical severity, while EPSS 79% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.