VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 29 Oct 2026

CVE-2025-64429: Mcpm · DuckDB implemented block-based encryption of DB on the filesystem starting with DuckDB 1.4.0

Affects mcpmSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 2.9.0_2 when convenient.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 22:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.9.0_2, 2.4.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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 13 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 1 Nov 2026.

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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity 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 mcpm to 2.9.0_2; harlequin to 2.4.0.

Patches and advisories

github.com/duckdb/duckdb/pull/17275 (opens in a new tab)

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewmcpm`pkg:brew/mcpm`Other threats	Affected >=2.8.2 <2.9.0_2	Fixed in 2.9.0_2
Homebrewharlequin`pkg:brew/harlequin`Other threats	Affected >=2.3.0 <2.4.0	Fixed in 2.4.0

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

AI-suggested

A patch is available and should be applied. DuckDB version 1.4.2 disables the insecure random number generator fallback, uses secure memory clearing primitives, enforces cipher specifications that include integrity checks, and verifies return codes from cryptographic functions. Users should upgrade to version 1.4.2 or later to mitigate these vulnerabilities.

Description

DuckDB introduced block-based encryption on the filesystem starting with version 1.4.0. Several security issues were found in this implementation, including fallback to an insecure random number generator (pcg32), potential removal of memory clearing calls by the compiler, downgrade attacks from GCM to CTR mode bypassing integrity checks, and failure to verify OpenSSL random number generator return values. These vulnerabilities could allow attackers to compromise cryptographic keys, bypass integrity protections, or influence the random number generator state. Version 1.4.2 addresses these issues by disabling the insecure RNG fallback, using secure memory clearing primitives, enforcing cipher specifications with integrity checks, and verifying return codes.

Impact

An attacker could compromise cryptographic keys used by DuckDB, bypass encryption integrity protections, and influence the random number generator state. This could lead to unauthorized access to encrypted data, exposure of sensitive keys via memory leaks, and undetected cryptographic failures. The vulnerabilities reduce the confidentiality and integrity guarantees of DuckDB's encrypted databases.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…