dbcve.org
SQLiteDatabase / datastore

CVE-2025-29087

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-04-07
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 3.49.1 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
In SQLite 3.44.0 through 3.49.0 before 3.49.1, the concat_ws() SQL function can cause memory to be written beyond the end of a malloc-allocated buffer. If the separator argument is attacker-controlled and has a large string (e.g., 2MB or more), an integer overflow occurs in calculating the size of the result buffer, and thus malloc may not allocate enough memory.

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 · high confidence

In SQLite 3.44.0-3.49.0, the concat_ws() function has an integer overflow when calculating buffer size for large separators (2MB+). This causes malloc to allocate insufficient memory, leading to a heap buffer overflow where data is written beyond the allocated buffer boundary.

MitigationUpgrade to SQLite 3.49.1 or later. As a defensive measure, validate and limit the size of separator arguments passed to concat_ws() to prevent attacker-controlled large strings.

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
SQLiteDatabase / datastore
Affected:>= 3.44.0, < 3.49.1

CVSS 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
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

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

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Determine installed SQLite version
    Run 'sqlite3 --version' or query SELECT sqlite_version(); from any SQLite connection
    Affected if The version is >= 3.44.0 and < 3.49.1
  2. Identify use of concat_ws function
    Search application source code for calls to concat_ws() or grep SQLite query logs for 'concat_ws' pattern
    Affected if The concat_ws() function is being called in the application or queries
  3. Check for large separator input potential
    Review code paths that pass separator arguments to concat_ws(); examine if user-controlled or file-based data can reach the separator parameter
    Affected if Separator arguments to concat_ws() can exceed 2MB in size
  4. Inspect memory allocation behavior (optional)
    If the application can be instrumented, monitor malloc calls during concat_ws execution with large separators
    Affected if Allocated buffer size is smaller than actual data written, causing overflow

You are affected if your SQLite version is between 3.44.0 and 3.49.0 AND your application passes separator arguments larger than 2MB to the concat_ws() function.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 3.49.1 or later
Fixed in 3.49.1
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to SQLite 3.49.1 or later. As a defensive measure, validate and limit the size of separator arguments passed to concat_ws() to prevent attacker-controlled large strings.

Recommended fix High confidence

SQLite 3.49.1 or later

  1. Identify all systems, applications, or libraries using SQLite versions 3.44.0 through 3.49.0
  2. Obtain SQLite version 3.49.1 or later from the official SQLite website (sqlite.org) or your distribution's package repository
  3. Replace the existing SQLite library/binary with the fixed version
  4. Rebuild or recompile any applications that statically or dynamically link against SQLite to ensure they use the updated library
  5. Test the upgrade by verifying that the concat_ws() function works correctly with large separator arguments
  6. Confirm the installed SQLite version using 'sqlite3 --version' or programmatically querying sqlite3_version to ensure it shows 3.49.1 or higher

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in SQLite Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation3.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,580
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,128.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-29087 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-29087 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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