Skip to content

SurrealDB vulnerable to Improper Authentication when Changing Databases as Scope User

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 10, 2024 in surrealdb/surrealdb • Updated Jul 31, 2024

Package

cargo surrealdb (Rust)

Affected versions

<= 1.5.3
>= 2.0.0-alpha.1, <= 2.0.0-alpha.5

Patched versions

1.5.4
2.0.0-alpha.6
cargo surrealdb-core (Rust)
<= 1.5.0
1.5.1

Description

Authentication would not be properly validated when an already authenticated scope user would use the use method or USE clause to switch working databases in a session. If there was a user record in the new database with identical record identifier as the original record that the user authenticated with in the original database, this could result in the user being able to perform actions under the identity of the unrelated user in the new database. This issue does not affect system users at any level.

By default, record identifiers are randomly generated with sufficient complexity to prevent the identifier collision required to trigger this issue. However, the issue may trigger in situations where multiple databases in the same SurrealDB instance are using explicitly defined or incremental record identifiers to identify users on an identically named table.

Impact

Under the circumstances described above, a user who has an authenticated session as a scope user in a database could become authorized to query data under the identity of a specific scope user associated with an identical record identifier in a different database within the same SurrealDB instace if the PERMISSIONS clause would allow it due to relying exclusively on the $auth parameter, which would point to the impersonated user. The impact is limited to the single user with matching record identifier.

The impact of this issue is mitigated if the table PERMISSIONS clause explicitly checks for an scope that only exists in the specific database (e.g. $scope = "production") or certain claims of the authentication token (e.g. $token.email = "example@example.com"), both of which would remain unchanged in the session of the authenticated user after changing databases. Permissions will default to NONE if there is no PERMISSIONS clause, which also mitigates this impact of this issue.

Patches

  • Version 1.5.4 and later are not affected by this issue.
  • Version 2.0.0-alpha.6 and later will not be affected by this issue.

Workarounds

Users unable to update may want to ensure that table PERMISSIONS clauses explicitly check that the $scope parameter matches a scope that is uniquely named across databases in the same SurrealDB instance. Ensuring that record identifiers for users are automatically generated or explicitly generated to be unique across databases may also be sufficient to mitigate this issue, as the $auth parameter will not link to any user record and any PERMISSIONS clauses restricting authorization based on the authenticated user should fail to successfully evaluate.

References

References

@gguillemas gguillemas published to surrealdb/surrealdb Jul 10, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 11, 2024
Reviewed Jul 11, 2024
Last updated Jul 31, 2024

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Weaknesses

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-gh9f-6xm2-c4j2

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.