CVE-2025-29744VulnerabilityPublished 12 Jun 2025Updated 17 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-29744: pg-promise · n/a

Affects pg-promiseSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 11.5.5 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 11.5.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Jun 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade pg-promise to 11.5.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmpg-promise`pkg:npm/pg-promise`Other threats	Affected <11.5.5	Fixed in 11.5.5

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability effectively, European organizations should: 1) Immediately upgrade all instances of pg-promise to version 11.5.5 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. 2) Conduct a thorough audit of all Node.js applications using pg-promise to identify and remediate any unsafe handling of numeric inputs, especially negative numbers, in database queries. 3) Implement strict input validation and sanitization at the application layer to ensure that only expected data types and value ranges are accepted before passing parameters to the database layer. 4) Employ parameterized queries and prepared statements consistently to prevent injection attacks, even if the underlying library has vulnerabilities. 5) Monitor database query logs for anomalous or suspicious queries that could indicate attempted exploitation. 6) Use Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules tailored to detect and block SQL Injection attempts targeting PostgreSQL syntax. 7) Educate development teams about secure coding practices related to database interactions, emphasizing the risks of improper input handling. 8) Review and tighten database user permissions to follow the principle of least privilege, limiting the potential damage from any successful injection. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on both immediate patching and systemic improvements in input handling and monitoring.

Description

pg-promise before 11.5.5 is vulnerable to SQL Injection due to improper handling of negative numbers.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be substantial, especially for those relying on Node.js applications interfacing with PostgreSQL databases via pg-promise. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive data, alteration or deletion of critical information, and disruption of business operations. Sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure, which often handle sensitive personal and operational data, are particularly at risk. The breach of confidentiality could result in violations of GDPR and other data protection regulations, leading to legal penalties and reputational damage. Integrity violations could undermine trust in data accuracy, affecting decision-making and operational reliability. Availability impacts could arise if attackers execute destructive queries or cause database crashes, leading to downtime and service interruptions. Furthermore, the ease of exploitation—due to the nature of SQL Injection and the lack of required authentication or user interaction—means that attackers can potentially automate attacks remotely, increasing the threat surface. Organizations with large-scale deployments or those exposing APIs to external users are especially vulnerable. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the potential impact remains high if the vulnerability is exploited.

CWE-89Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #2OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Query Parameterization (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Expanding Control over the Operating System from the Database (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Jun 2025, 15:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-89

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats