Skip to content

GHSA-vjjx-rfw4-rmfc CVE-2026-63746

SurrealDB: Graph traversal bypasses table SELECT permissions

High crates.io
Severity
7.1 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.40%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 34.14% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
3.1.0
Upgrade surrealdb to this version or later

Description

An authenticated record or scope user could read records on any table reachable through a graph edge or REFERENCES TO back-reference, regardless of that table's PERMISSIONS FOR select clause.

Traversing SELECT * FROM source->edge->target returned full documents from target even when target was defined as PERMISSIONS FOR select NONE. The same bypass extended through multi-hop chains, so any table reachable by a sequence of edges from a readable starting point was exposed.

The root cause: GraphEdgeScan and ReferenceScan fetched records straight from storage without routing them through Document::pluck_select, so the target table's permission expression was never consulted.

Impact

An authenticated record or scope user can read records on any table reachable through a chain of graph edges or back-references from a table they have select on, regardless of the target's PERMISSIONS FOR select clause. Confidentiality-only and bounded to the caller's current database — namespace and database isolation are unaffected.

Patches

A new per-batch permission cache (exec::permission::CachedTableSelect) resolves each target table's SELECT permission once and filters yielded values through check_permission_for_value, matching the regular SELECT code path.

  • Versions 3.1.0 and later are not affected.

Workarounds

  • Remove select permission on edge tables whose targets should be hidden.
  • Use namespace or 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 4.0 7.1

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.

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-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
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