CVE Intelligence
Medium Cryptography

CVE-2025-64429 — DuckDB Encryption Crypto implementation is vulnerable

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.

Published Nov 12, 2025 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.1% (30-day exploitation probability)+0
  • Technical severity (medium)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

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

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.12%
ahead of 2% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Duckdb
Duckdb
CVSS base
6.5
Medium · 3 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

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

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Duckdb Duckdb).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (cryptography), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Duckdb Duckdb ≥ 1.4.0 and < 1.4.2 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Duckdb Duckdb version >= 1.4.0, < 1.4.2 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
6.9 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.9 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
6.5 CVSS 3.1 Medium 3.9 2.5 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-327 · Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.12%

Detection

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

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Check TLS negotiations and unexpected certificates in the component’s traffic.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · duckdb/duckdb
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 6.5
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Analyzed
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • 2025
  • CVE published
    Nov 12, 2025 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Duckdb
every CVE for this vendor
Cryptography
same class
CWE-327
other 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 record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2025-64429 is "DuckDB Encryption Crypto implementation is vulnerable", rated Medium. It affects Duckdb (Duckdb); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.12% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.