CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
HIGH

CVE-2025-54379

CVE-2025-54379 — eKuiper API endpoints handling SQL queries with user-controlled table names.

LF Edge eKuiper is a lightweight IoT data analytics and stream processing engine running on resource-constraint edge devices. In versions before 2.2.1, there is a critical SQL Injection vulnerability in the getLast API functionality of the eKuiper project. This flaw allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL statements on the underlying SQLite database by manipulating the table name input in an API request. Exploitation can lead to data theft, corruption, or deletion, and full database compromise. This is fixed in version 2.2.1.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

1%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

lf edge

ekuiper

CVSS base

8.9

HIGH

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

Products (1)

ekuiper

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
8.9CVSS 4.0HIGHcvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-89

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • lf edgeevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-89other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.