RusqliteDatabase / datastore · Rusqlite Project
CVE-2020-35872
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedAn issue was discovered in the rusqlite crate before 0.23.0 for Rust. Memory safety can be violated via the repr(Rust) type.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceThe rusqlite crate before version 0.23.0 contains a memory safety vulnerability related to the repr(Rust) type representation. This could allow memory corruption or potentially remote code execution when processing malicious SQLite queries through the affected library.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
RusqliteDatabase / datastore
< 0.23.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed rusqlite versionRun 'cargo tree -p rusqlite' or inspect Cargo.lock for the rusqlite entry to find the exact version numberAffected if The version listed is less than 0.23.0 (e.g., 0.22.0, 0.21.0, etc.)
-
Check for custom type implementationsSearch project source code for implementations of rusqlite's 'FromSql' or 'ToSql' traits, typically found in type definition blocksAffected if Custom Rust types are registered as SQL types using rusqlite's custom type binding features
-
Verify repr(Rust) attribute usageInspect the custom type definitions for the #[repr(Rust)] attribute, for example: #[repr(Rust)] struct MyType { ... }Affected if Custom types used with rusqlite have #[repr(Rust)] defined on them
-
Check query execution contextReview code paths that pass user-controlled or untrusted data into rusqlite query methods (execute, query, prepare) with the custom typesAffected if Untrusted SQL input is processed through rusqlite while using vulnerable custom type representations
You are affected if rusqlite version is below 0.23.0 AND you use custom types with #[repr(Rust)] attribute that handle potentially malicious SQLite query data.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped0.23.0
Upgrade rusqlite to version 0.23.0 or later to address the memory safety violation. Review any custom type implementations using repr(Rust) for potential similar issues.
0.23.0
- Update your Cargo.toml file to specify rusqlite version 0.23.0 or later: rusqlite = "0.23.0"
- Run `cargo update rusqlite` to update the dependency to the specified version
- Run `cargo build` or `cargo test` to verify the upgrade works correctly with your codebase
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Rusqlite
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,000.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-35872 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-35872 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data