CVE-2025-8709
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 · uneditedA SQL injection vulnerability exists in the langchain-ai/langchain repository, specifically in the LangGraph's SQLite store implementation. The affected version is langgraph-checkpoint-sqlite 2.0.10. The vulnerability arises from improper handling of filter operators ($eq, $ne, $gt, $lt, $gte, $lte) where direct string concatenation is used without proper parameterization. This allows attackers to inject arbitrary SQL, leading to unauthorized access to all documents, data exfiltration of sensitive fields such as passwords and API keys, and a complete bypass of application-level security filters.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in langgraph-checkpoint-sqlite 2.0.10's LangGraph SQLite store implementation. The filter operators ($eq, $ne, $gt, $lt, $gte, $lte) use direct string concatenation instead of parameterized queries, allowing arbitrary SQL injection.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/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.
-
Identify installed version of langgraph-checkpoint-sqliteRun: pip show langgraph-checkpoint-sqlite or pip list | grep langgraph-checkpoint-sqliteAffected if Version is 2.0.10 exactly (no other versions are listed as affected in this CVE)
-
Confirm SQLite store is in useSearch codebase for imports of SQLiteStore orlanggraph stores (e.g., from langgraph.checkpoint.sqlite import SQLiteStore) or check runtime dependenciesAffected if The application imports and uses SQLiteStore from langgraph-checkpoint-sqlite
-
Check for filter operator usage on SQLite storeSearch code for calls using filter operators: .search(), .alist(), .get() with filter dicts containing $eq, $ne, $gt, $lt, $gte, or $lte keysAffected if Filter operators are being passed to SQLite store queries
-
Inspect source code for string concatenation in filter handlingExamine langgraph/checkpoint/sqlite.py or equivalent for filter-to-SQL conversion code - look for patterns like f"...{operator}..." or string formatting with operator values without parameter bindingAffected if Filter operator values are concatenated directly into SQL strings without parameterized query binding
You are affected if langgraph-checkpoint-sqlite version 2.0.10 is installed AND your application uses SQLiteStore with filter operators ($eq, $ne, $gt, $lt, $gte, $lte) that pass user input directly into SQL queries.
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.
From vendor dataUpgrade to a patched version of langgraph-checkpoint-sqlite when available, or refactor the filter operator handling to use parameterized SQL queries instead of string concatenation.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-8709 — 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-2025-8709 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