CVE Tools

CVE-2025-67644

LangGraph SQLite Checkpoint is vulnerable to SQL Injection via metadata filter key in checkpointer list method

No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 83rd percentile. A vendor fix is available.

Published Updated Sources: CVE.org, NVD, GitHub

What to do

The vendor has published a fix. Version details are below where the sources state them.

What it is

From the CVE record

LangGraph SQLite Checkpoint is an implementation of LangGraph CheckpointSaver that uses SQLite DB (both sync and async, via aiosqlite). Versions 3.0.0 and below are vulnerable to SQL injection through the checkpoint implementation. Checkpoint allows attackers to manipulate SQL queries through metadata filter keys, affecting applications that accept untrusted metadata filter keys (not just filter values) in checkpoint search operations. The _metadata_predicate() function constructs SQL queries by interpolating filter keys directly into f-strings without validation. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.1.

In plain language

No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.

Exploitation

Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.

EPSS83rd
CISA KEV

Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.

Public exploits

No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.

EPSS

2.3% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 83rd percentile of scored CVEs.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.

Lifecycle

5 events over 2 days, from the signal feeds we watch.

  1. Patch availablerecord updated
  2. Publishedweakness classified, att&ck mapped

Affected products

Technical detail

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

Scored 7.3 by NVD.

How it is reached

  • Attack Vector LocalRequires local access to the vulnerable system (e.g. local login, malicious file)
  • Attack Complexity LowNo special conditions — the attack can be reliably reproduced
  • Privileges Required LowRequires basic user-level privileges
  • User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation

Scope

  • Scope ChangedThe exploit can affect other components (e.g. sandbox escape, host compromise from VM)

Impact if exploited

  • Confidentiality HighTotal information disclosure — all data in the component is compromised
  • Integrity LowData modification is possible but limited in scope or consequence
  • Availability NoneNo availability impact

Weaknesses

ATT&CK techniques

Mapped from the weaknesses above (CWE to ATT&CK), not observed in attacks.

Sources

Watch the software you run.

My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.

We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for PyPI, not every advisory.

We use analytics cookies to see which pages and articles actually help people. Decline and none of them run — the site works the same. What we store