Read the docs
TI-2025-39842 Aliases CVE-2025-64429

DuckDB Encryption Crypto implementation is vulnerable

Priority LOW 29CWE-327Published · Updated

Key facts

Attack vector
Network
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Impact type
Information disclosure
Confidentiality · integrity · availability
Low · Low · None
Fix status
Fixed

Attack profile from CVSS 4.0 · CNA. Fix status from CNA. Impact type from CWE-327.

Summary

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.

Why it matters now

Exploitation None reported CISA SSVC · not in CISA KEV
EPSS 0.00118 1st percentileScored 2026-11-07
Fix Fixed duckdb (duckdb): 1.4.2

SSVC decision points

CISA ADP · SSVC 2.0.3

Exploitation
None
Automatable
No
Technical impact
Partial

The decision (Track, Attend, Act) also depends on your mission and well-being impact; see CISA's SSVC guide.

Affected products

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed inStatusSource
duckdbduckdb1.4.0 to before 1.4.21.4.2Patch availableCNA
  • duckdb Vendorduckdb Affected 1.4.0 to before 1.4.2 Fixed in 1.4.2 Patch available CNA

CPE configurations NVD · 1

CPEVersionsRoleVendor
cpe:2.3:a:duckdb:duckdb:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*1.4.0 to before 1.4.2Vulnerableduckdb
  • cpe:2.3:a:duckdb:duckdb:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* Versions 1.4.0 to before 1.4.2 Vulnerable ·duckdb

Remediation

  • Fix · CNA duckdb (duckdb) Fixed in 1.4.2

Vendor assessments

Red Hat

Red Hat rating: Moderate. Red Hat's page for this CVE →

Not affected: 1 product
  • Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)

Timeline

  1. 2026-10-02 Threatist record created from CVE-2025-64429

References

  • TI-2026-79288 Out-of-bounds write in Google Brotli decoder KEVCVSS 4.0CRITICAL 9.2
  • TI-2024-27733 DuckDB: sniff_csv provides filesystem access even when enable_external_access is disabled CVSS 3.1HIGH 7.5

Sources