{"answers":{"affected":"1 open source package ship an affected version, including duckdb. It affects 1 product.","exploited":"There is no known exploitation of CVE-2025-64429 in the wild and no public exploit code.","fix":"Upgrade duckdb to 1.4.2 or later.","what":"CVE-2025-64429 is a medium-severity vulnerability in duckdb, published on 12 Nov 2025. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim."},"fix_prompt":"Check this codebase for CVE-2025-64429 and fix it if it is affected.\n\nWhat it is: CVE-2025-64429 is a medium-severity vulnerability in duckdb, published on 12 Nov 2025. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim.\nExploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2025-64429 in the wild and no public exploit code.\n\nAffected packages and fixed versions:\n- duckdb (PyPI): affected from 1.4.0; fixed in 1.4.2\n\nTask:\n1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies.\n2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it.\n3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead.\n4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why.\n5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing.\n\nReference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-64429/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-64429/index.md)","id":"CVE-2025-64429","markdown":"https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-64429/index.md","name":"CVE-2025-64429","record":{"aliases":["GHSA-vmp8-hg63-v2hp","JLSEC-2026-775","PYSEC-2025-112"],"analysis":{"component_type":"database","fix_type":"upgrade","impacts":["data_read","security_bypass"],"network_reachable":"yes","non_default_config":true,"product_category":"DuckDB database","requires_auth":"none","summary":"Attackers can compromise encryption keys and bypass integrity checks in DuckDB due to insecure random number generation and memory clearing flaws.","user_interaction":"not_required","vuln_class":"weak_cryptography"},"analysis_generated_by":"qwen3.8-flash-next","assigner":"GitHub_M","cpe":[{"product":"duckdb","vendor":"duckdb"}],"cvss":{"score":6.9,"severity":"medium","source":"cna","vector":"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N","version":"4.0"},"cwes":[{"id":"CWE-327","name":"Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm"}],"description":"DuckDB is a SQL database management system. DuckDB implemented block-based encryption of DB on the filesystem starting with DuckDB 1.4.0. There are a few issues related to this implementation. The DuckDB can fall back to an insecure random number generator (pcg32) to generate cryptographic keys or IVs. When clearing keys from memory, the compiler may remove the memset() and leave sensitive data on the heap. By modifying the database header, an attacker could downgrade the encryption mode from GCM to CTR to bypass integrity checks. There may be a failure to check return value on call to OpenSSL `rand_bytes()`. An attacker could use public IVs to compromise the internal state of RNG and determine the randomly generated key used to encrypt temporary files, get access to cryptographic keys if they have access to process memory (e.g. through memory leak),circumvent GCM integrity checks, and/or influence the OpenSSL random number generator and DuckDB would not be able to detect a failure of the generator. Version 1.4.2 has disabled the insecure random number generator by no longer using the fallback to write to or create databases. Instead, DuckDB will now attempt to install and load the OpenSSL implementation in the `httpfs` extension. DuckDB now uses secure MbedTLS primitive to clear memory as recommended and requires explicit specification of ciphers without integrity checks like CTR on `ATTACH`. Additionally, DuckDB now checks the return code.","ecosystems":["PyPI"],"exploits":{"exploitdb":0,"first_seen":null,"github_poc":0,"max_poc_stars":null,"metasploit":0,"nuclei":0,"refs":[],"tier":"none_known"},"has_fix":true,"headline":"DuckDB Encryption Crypto implementation is vulnerable","id":"CVE-2025-64429","indexable":true,"kev":null,"kind":"cve","links":{"ecosystem":"PyPI","product":null,"products":[],"type":"weak_cryptography","year":"2025"},"n_packages":1,"n_references":4,"next":{"headline":"Parse Server Vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in File Upload via URI Format","id":"CVE-2025-64430"},"packages":[{"ecosystem":"PyPI","fixed":["1.4.2"],"introduced":["1.4.0"],"last_affected":[],"package":"duckdb","purl":"pkg:pypi/duckdb","source":"PYSEC-2025-112"}],"prev":{"headline":"DataEase DB2 JNDI Vulnerability","id":"CVE-2025-64428"},"products":["duckdb"],"published":"2025-11-12","related":[{"cvss_score":7.5,"headline":"DuckDB: sniff_csv provides filesystem access even when enable_external_access is disabled","id":"CVE-2024-41672","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2024-07-24"}],"sources":[{"class":"attribution","licence":"CVE Terms of Use (MITRE)","name":"CVE List","prefix":"CVE"},{"class":"attribution","licence":"CC BY 4.0","name":"PyPA Advisory Database","prefix":"PYSEC"},{"class":"attribution","licence":"US public information, NVD API terms","name":"NVD"},{"class":"attribution","licence":"CWE Terms of Use","name":"CWE (MITRE)"},{"class":"attribution","licence":"FIRST CVSS licence","name":"CVSS (FIRST)"}],"ssvc":{"automatable":"no","exploitation":"none","technical_impact":"partial"},"state":"PUBLISHED","updated":"2025-11-13","vendors":["duckdb"]},"summary":"Attackers can compromise encryption keys and bypass integrity checks in DuckDB due to insecure random number generation and memory clearing flaws.","url":"https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-64429/"}