CVE-2025-5690
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 · uneditedPostgreSQL Anonymizer v2.0 and v2.1 contain a vulnerability that allows a masked user to bypass the masking rules defined on a table and read the original data using a database cursor or the --insert option of pg_dump. This problem occurs only when dynamic masking is enabled, which is not the default setting. The problem is resolved in version 2.2.1
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 confidencePostgreSQL Anonymizer v2.0-2.1 has a vulnerability where masked users can bypass masking rules and read original unmasked data through database cursors or the pg_dump --insert option. This only affects systems where dynamic masking is explicitly enabled, which is not the default configuration.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Check PostgreSQL Anonymizer extension versionRun SELECT extversion FROM pg_extension WHERE extname = 'anon'; or SELECT anon.version(); to retrieve the installed extension version.Affected if Version is between 2.0 and 2.1 inclusive (e.g., 2.0.0, 2.1.0)
-
Verify dynamic masking is enabledCheck the PostgreSQL configuration for the anon.dynamic_masking parameter by running SHOW anon.dynamic_masking; or query pg_settings WHERE name = 'anon.dynamic_masking';Affected if anon.dynamic_masking is set to on or true (vulnerability only applies when dynamic masking is explicitly enabled)
-
Confirm extension is loadedEnsure the anon extension is actually installed and available by running SELECT * FROM pg_extension WHERE extname = 'anon' AND extversion LIKE '2%';Affected if Extension is present and version 2.x is returned
-
Check for masking role assignmentsQuery SELECT * FROM pg_roles WHERE rolname LIKE 'masked%' OR rolname LIKE 'anon%'; to identify roles that may be subject to dynamic masking rules.Affected if Any roles exist that utilize dynamic masking (vulnerability allows these roles to bypass masking)
User is affected if PostgreSQL Anonymizer version 2.0-2.1 is installed AND dynamic masking (anon.dynamic_masking) is explicitly enabled in the configuration.
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 · scopedUpgrade to PostgreSQL Anonymizer v2.2.1. If immediate upgrade is not possible, disable dynamic masking as a temporary workaround.
2.2.1
- Stop the PostgreSQL service to ensure a clean update process
- Upgrade the PostgreSQL Anonymizer extension to version 2.2.1 using the package manager or pgxn client (e.g., `pgxn install pg_anon` or equivalent for your distribution)
- Restart the PostgreSQL service
- Verify the extension version is 2.2.1 by running `SELECT * FROM pg_extension WHERE extname = 'anon';`
- Ensure dynamic masking is still functioning correctly by testing masking rules
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-5690 — 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-2025-5690 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