Skip to content

GHSA-3gfj-fxx4-f22w CVE-2022-39352 GO-2022-1099

OpenFGA Authorization Bypass

Critical Go
Severity
4.8 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.46%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.64% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
0.2.5
Upgrade github.com/openfga/openfga to this version or later

Description

Overview

During our internal security assessment, it was discovered that OpenFGA versions v0.2.4 and prior are vulnerable to authorization bypass under certain conditions.

Am I Affected?

You are affected by this vulnerability if you are using openfga/openfga version v0.2.4 or prior, and have tuples where the user field is set to a userset e.g. folder:test#owner, and the tuple's relation is used on the right-hand side of a from statement.

How to fix that?

Upgrade to version 0.2.5.

Backward Compatibility

This update is not backward compatible. Any tuples where the user field is set to a userset, and the tuple's relation is used on the right-hand side of a from statement have to be rewritten.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/openfga/openfga
< 0.2.5
0.2.5

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.

github.com/openfga/openfga Go → 0.2.5

go
go get github.com/openfga/openfga@v0.2.5 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.8

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-g3pg-frfm-pr2m
OpenFGA: ListUsers returns a deliberately-excluded user when a `but not` exclusion under a type-bound wildcard is intersected (`and`) with another relation that also grants that user
Medium Also affects github.com/openfga/openfga
GHSA-hcxc-wf8j-23hv
OpenFGA: OIDC audience validation skipped when --authn-oidc-audience is unset
High Also affects github.com/openfga/openfga
GHSA-cf98-j28v-49v6
OpenFGA Improper Policy Enforcement
Medium Also affects github.com/openfga/openfga
GHSA-8396-jffm-qx4w
OpenFGA has cache-key delimiter injection in shared-iterator and v2 iterator that caches enables intra-store authorization-decision poisoning
Medium Also affects github.com/openfga/openfga
GHSA-57j5-qwp2-vqp6
OpenFGA has Improper Policy Enforcement
Medium Also affects github.com/openfga/openfga
GHSA-68m9-983m-f3v5
OpenFGA: Unauthenticated playground endpoint discloses preshared API key in HTML response
Medium Also affects github.com/openfga/openfga
GHSA-jwvj-g8pc-cx45
OpenFGA's BatchCheck within-request deduplication produces incorrect authorization decisions via list-value cache-key collision
High Also affects github.com/openfga/openfga
GHSA-h6c8-cww8-35hf
OpenFGA has an Authorization Bypass through cached keys
Critical Also affects github.com/openfga/openfga
Is this in your code?

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