CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2026-63750

CVE-2026-63750 — SurrealDB before 3.1.0 Memory Amplification via /sql WebSocket

SurrealDB versions before 3.1.0 fail to apply the SURREAL_WEBSOCKET_MAX_MESSAGE_SIZE limit to anonymous /sql WebSocket connections, allowing attackers to buffer unbounded frames in the per-connection read buffer. Attackers can stream WebSocket frames larger than the configured limit across multiple concurrent connections to consume excessive memory and degrade /sql availability.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, VulnCheck

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

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

surrealdb

surrealdb

CVSS base

5.3

MEDIUM

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

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

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)

surrealdb

Products (1)

surrealdb

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
5.3CVSS 3.1MEDIUM——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-770

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

  • T1498.001Network Denial of Service: Direct Network Flood
  • T1499Endpoint Denial of Service
  • T1499.003Endpoint Denial of Service: Application Exhaustion Flood

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /sql.

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

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.