GHSA-wjjj-24cx-f28g
SurrealDB has unauthenticated remote DoS via malformed RPC `use` call
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- —
- No score published
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
3.1.0- Upgrade surrealdb to this version or later
Description
A single unauthenticated WebSocket message to /rpc crashed the SurrealDB server. Sending use { db: "x" } without first selecting a namespace hit .expect("namespace should be set") in the use handler; because surrealdb-core is built with panic = 'abort', the panic terminated the process. use is callable before signin, and the per-method capability check passes by default for guest callers — so no credentials, token, or --allow-guests flag are required.
Impact
An unauthenticated remote attacker who could reach the /rpc endpoint could crash the SurrealDB server with a single WebSocket message. No credentials, token, session knowledge, or capability are required.
Patches
A patch has been introduced that returns a typed invalid_params response when db is set on a session with no ns, replacing the panic.
- Versions 3.1.0 and later are not affected by this issue.
Workarounds
Affected users who are unable to update should restrict network access to the /rpc endpoint to trusted clients, and run SurrealDB under a process supervisor that restarts on crash.
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-248: Uncaught Exception
An exception is thrown from a function, but it is not caught.
CWE-754: Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Choose languages with features such as exception handling that force the programmer to anticipate unusual conditions that may generate exceptions. Custom exceptions may need to be developed to handle unusual business-logic conditions. Be careful not to pass sensitive exceptions back to the user (CWE-209, CWE-248).
- Implementation: Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
- Implementation: If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. Exposing additional information to a potential attacker in the context of an exceptional condition can help the attacker determine what attack vectors are most likely to succeed beyond DoS.
- 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.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery.
- Architecture and Design: Use system limits, which should help to prevent resource exhaustion. However, the product should still handle low resource conditions since they may still occur.
References
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- 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