Skip to content

GHSA-c8jx-96c9-8xrp

SurrealDB: Field-level SELECT permissions bypassed via indexed COUNT fast paths

Medium crates.io
Severity
4.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
—
No score published
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
3.1.0
Upgrade surrealdb to this version or later

Description

A record user could learn the value of a hidden field by counting how many records match a guess.

When DEFINE FIELD ... PERMISSIONS FOR select WHERE ... hides a field's contents from a caller, and that field is indexed, running SELECT count() FROM t WHERE hidden_field = "guess" GROUP ALL returned a count greater than zero whenever a record actually had that value — even though the caller was never allowed to read the field directly. The query planner used an indexed-COUNT shortcut (Index::Count, IndexCountScan, or the legacy Iterate Index Count / Iterate Index Keys paths) that counts matching index entries and skips the permission check that would normally hide the value. The same query with WITH NOINDEX correctly returned [], confirming the gap.

By repeating the count query with different guesses, an attacker can confirm or recover the contents of any restricted field they could not read through a normal SELECT.

Impact

What an attacker can do:

  • Confirm or recover values of a field protected by field-level SELECT permissions on any table they hold table-level SELECT on, provided the field is indexed.
  • Repeat the query with different guesses to read restricted field contents one value at a time.

What it can't do:

  • Read fields that are not indexed (the shortcut only fires when an index covers the predicate column).
  • Cross table, database or namespace isolation boundaries.
  • Modify data, escalate privileges, or affect availability.

Patches

The legacy planner (surrealdb/core/src/idx/planner/tree.rs) and the streaming planner (surrealdb/core/src/exec/planner/select/mod.rs) now both refuse the indexed fast path when the WHERE / ORDER tree references a field governed by a non-Full SELECT permission:

  • resolve_indexes skips any B-tree / unique index whose columns are governed by such a permission.
  • A new cond_touches_restricted_field flag is propagated; eval_count refuses a dedicated Index::Count when set.
  • The streaming planner adds cond_touches_restricted_select_field, a RestrictedIdiomChecker visitor that matches each idiom against the table's field-permission prefixes (loaded via the plan-time txn), and gates IndexCountScan emission on it.
  • The fast paths are preserved for root / owner sessions via should_check_perms_for_view.

Versions 3.1.0 and later are not affected.

Workarounds

Users unable to patch are advised to consider the following workarounds:

  • Avoid DEFINE INDEX on fields whose values are protected by field-level SELECT permissions. The class of attack is specific to the indexed fast paths.
  • Restrict the ability of record users to issue arbitrary SELECT count() … GROUP ALL queries against tables containing field-protected columns.
  • Use namespace / database isolation as the primary boundary where feasible.

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
surrealdb
< 3.1.0
3.1.0

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 → 3.1.0

cargo
cargo update -p surrealdb --precise 3.1.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
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
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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-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-wp87-mgvq-5j93
SurrealDB: USE NS/DB implicit creation bypasses DEFINE authorization
Medium Also affects surrealdb
GHSA-97vg-427p-8hx5
SurrealDB: Port-specific --deny-net rules silently bypassed on HTTP redirect
Medium Also affects surrealdb
GHSA-6wqw-vhfr-9999
SurrealDB: Authenticated subscribers can read records hidden by SELECT permissions via LIVE subscriptions
Medium Also affects surrealdb
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