GHSA-27vq-hv74-7cqp CVE-2024-58356
SurrealDB has Silent Failure to Overwrite Table Definition of Relation Type
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.27%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 19.76% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-732 Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
The OVERWRITE clause of the DEFINE TABLE statement would fail to overwrite data for tables that were defined with TYPE RELATION. Since table definitions include the PERMISSIONS clause, this failure would result in permissions not being overwritten as a result, which may potentially lead users to believe they have changed the table permissions when they have not.
Impact
If a user attempted to update table permissions of a table defined with TYPE RELATION using DEFINE TABLE ... OVERWRITE, permissions for the table would not be changed. This may allow a client that is authorized to run queries in a SurrealDB server to access certain data in that specific table that they were not intended to be able to access after the specified change in permissions.
Patches
The DEFINE TABLE statement has been updated to appropriately overwrite data for tables defined with TYPE RELATION.
- Version 2.1.4 and later are not affected by this issue.
Workarounds
Users of tables with TYPE RELATION that may have been modified using the OVERWRITE clause in order to update permissions are advised to verify that the intended permissions are in place using the INFO FOR DB statement. Affected users who are unable to update and require updating permissions in a table with TYPE RELATION will be required to remove the table and define it from scratch with the intended permissions. Data can be preserved by backing it up to a temporary table.
References
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| surrealdb | >= 2.0.0, < 2.1.4 |
2.1.4 |
| surrealdb-core | >= 2.0.0, < 2.1.4 |
2.1.4 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
surrealdb crates.io → 2.1.4
- cargo
cargo update -p surrealdb --precise 2.1.4
surrealdb-core crates.io → 2.1.4
- cargo
cargo update -p surrealdb-core --precise 2.1.4
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 6.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-732: Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user) [REF-62], and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
- Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly. This will allow you to maintain more fine-grained control over your resources. [REF-207]
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation, Installation: During program startup, explicitly set the default permissions or umask to the most restrictive setting possible. Also set the appropriate permissions during program installation. This will prevent you from inheriting insecure permissions from any user who installs or runs the program.
- System Configuration: For all configuration files, executables, and libraries, make sure that they are only readable and writable by the software's administrator.
- Documentation: Do not suggest insecure configuration changes in documentation, especially if those configurations can extend to resources and other programs that are outside the scope of the application.
- Installation: Do not assume that a system administrator will manually change the configuration to the settings that are recommended in the software's manual.
- Operation, System Configuration: Ensure that the software runs properly under the United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB) [REF-199] or an equivalent hardening configuration guide, which many organizations use to limit the attack surface and potential risk of deployed software.
- Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to disable public access.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-8rw6-p7m8-63jp SurrealDB: Array element-level (field.*) SELECT permissions leak denied elements to record users | High | Also affects surrealdb |
| GHSA-848m-r628-vrxw SurrealDB: Custom API route lets authenticated callers override namespace/database scope via URL path | High | Also affects surrealdb |
| GHSA-66r2-5gwj-gxm2 SurrealDB: Writes in a PERMISSIONS clause bypass table permissions | Medium | Also affects surrealdb-core |
| GHSA-m3c3-78fh-w3w7 SurrealDB allows bypass of deny-net flags via DNS resolution | High | Also affects SurrealDB |
| GHSA-whwg-vh4f-pmmf SurrealDB: Edge PERMISSIONS FOR delete bypassed when a connected node is deleted | Medium | Also affects surrealdb |
| GHSA-fwg2-gr34-q3w8 SurrealDB: ES512 silently downgraded to ES384 due to jsonwebtoken crate limitation | Medium | Also affects surrealdb |
| GHSA-c8jx-96c9-8xrp SurrealDB: Field-level SELECT permissions bypassed via indexed COUNT fast paths | Medium | Also affects surrealdb |
| GHSA-wp87-mgvq-5j93 SurrealDB: USE NS/DB implicit creation bypasses DEFINE authorization | Medium | Also affects surrealdb |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor