Home/CVE/openGauss 在处理带 NLS 参数的 to_timestamp 调用时,to_timestamp_with_fmt_nls() 会将 nls_fmt_str 保存到 u
CVE

CVE-2026-14178

openGauss 在处理带 NLS 参数的 to_timestamp 调用时,to_timestamp_with_fmt_nls() 会将 nls_fmt_str 保存到 u

openGauss 在处理带 NLS 参数的 to_timestamp 调用时,to_timestamp_with_fmt_nls() 会将 nls_fmt_str 保存到 u_sess-parser_cxt.nls_fmt_str。在 seqscan + sort 执行路径下,该字符串原本被分配在 SeqScan 的表达式上下文中;当 SeqScan 完成后,该内存上下文会被 reset,但后续结果输出阶段 timestamp_out() 仍会通过 CheckNlsFormat() 访问 u_sess-parser_cxt.nls_fmt_str,导致访问已释放内存。攻击者在具备数据库 SQL 执行权限的情况下,可构造特定 to_timestamp(..., ..., nlsparam) 查询触发 heap-use-after-free。在 ASan/Memcheck 环境下表现为数据库服务退出;在实际运行环境中可能造成后端进程异常退出,影响数据库服务可用性,形成拒绝服务风险。该问题在openGauss-server-7.0.0-RC1版本和openGauss-server-7.0.0-RC2版本存在,目前已在openGauss-server-7.0.0-RC3版本修复。由于 openGauss-server-7.0.0-RC1版本和openGauss-server-7.0.0-RC2均为创新版本,不会发布针对性补丁包,涉及版本升级至 openGauss-server-7.0.0-RC3或更新版本即可。.

MEDIUM · CVSS 5.9
Monitor
  • No active-exploitation, high-EPSS, or public-exploit signals - routine patching cadence
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-14178, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.
Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:
CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked. EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal. CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score. Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.
How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.
Then what - two workflows:
Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits. PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.
Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).

Severity & exploitation scoring

View on NVD →
CVSS base score
5.9
MEDIUMCVSS v3.1 · a1a479f7-907b-4ae8-a999-9148cadc9224
EPSS exploitation probability
n/a
No EPSS score in our data for this CVE. EPSS is published daily for scored CVEs - a very new, reserved, or rejected CVE may not have one yet.
CVSS metric silhouette
VectorComplexityPrivilegesInteractionScopeConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
shape grows toward worst-case
SSVC triage
No SSVC vulnrichment for this CVE. CISA's Vulnrichment program scores newer CVEs (~2024 onwards) plus selected older critical ones. Use the EPSS probability + KEV status to triage instead.
CVSS vector breakdown
Exploitability - how they get in
Attack Vector
Network Adjacent Local Physical
Attack Complexity
Low High
Privileges Required
None Low High
User Interaction
None Required
Scope
Unchanged Changed
Impact - what breaks
Confidentiality
None Low High
Integrity
None Low High
Availability
None Low High
VECTORCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

ATT&CK techniques

1

Techniques this CVE enables. Pills with a solid outline are high confidence - named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei, or human-curated by CTID; the rest are inferred from the weakness type using MITRE's CVE Mapping Methodology and the CWE → CAPEC chain. Broad, generic-weakness guesses are filtered out. A small marks a technique that N independent sources agree on.

▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques

Weakness Classification

🔗

References & Sources

1
Source URLs (vendor pages, mailing lists, write-ups). Exploit/PoC links are in their own section above to avoid duplication.