GHSA-h5q3-3v5q-v5j8
Duplicate Advisory: SurrealDB server-takeover via SurrealQL injection on backup import
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- —
- No score published
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Duplicate Advisory
This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-ccj3-5p93-8p42. This link is maintained to preserve external references.
Original Description
SurrealDB before 2.0.5, 2.1.x before 2.1.5, and 2.2.x before 2.2.2 fails to properly escape table and field names in the command-line export command. An authenticated System User with OWNER or EDITOR roles can create tables or fields with malicious names containing SurrealQL. When a higher-privileged user subsequently imports the exported backup, the injected SurrealQL executes, enabling privilege escalation and root-level takeover of the SurrealDB instance. Applications that let users define custom tables or fields are also exposed to a universal second-order SurrealQL injection even when query parameters are sanitized.
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| surrealdb | all versions |
No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Passive
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- High
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- High
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- High
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 8.0
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
- Implementation: If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Operation: Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands.
- System Configuration: Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files.
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Withdrawn
- Last updated by the source
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-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 |
| GHSA-97vg-427p-8hx5 SurrealDB: Port-specific --deny-net rules silently bypassed on HTTP redirect | 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