GHSA-66r2-5gwj-gxm2: Medium severity rust/surrealdb-core vulnerability

Published Sep 4, 2026
·
Updated

A PERMISSIONS ... WHERE clause is evaluated with permission enforcement disabled, so it can't recurse into its own checks. But the clause could also contain data-modifying statements, and these ran with enforcement still off — so evaluating a permission check could write to tables the caller cannot write.

For example:

surql DEFINE TABLE post PERMISSIONS FOR update WHERE (CREATE log SET at = time::now()) OR true;

Any user allowed to update a post now also creates a log record, even with no permission on log. The clause is evaluated once per matched record, so one statement can cause several writes.

Impact

Only databases with a PERMISSIONS clause that contains a write are affected; FULL, NONE, and read-only clauses are not.

What an attacker can do:

- With permission to perform the guarded operation (a low-privileged or record user is enough), write to tables in their own database that their permissions would otherwise forbid, by triggering an operation the clause guards. - Cause several writes from a single statement — the clause is evaluated once per matched record. - Trigger unintended events, cascades, or data corruption on those tables.

What it can't do:

- Escape the caller's own namespace and database — a permission clause cannot switch namespace or database. - Perform root- or namespace-level actions such as creating users; the caller's role still applies. - Read hidden data — this is an integrity issue, not disclosure.

Patches

Permission clauses must now be read-only: defining or importing one that contains a write is rejected, and any write attempted while a clause is evaluated is blocked at runtime, including writes reached through a called function. Read-only clauses are unaffected.

- Versions 3.2.0 and later are not affected by this issue.

Workarounds

Users unable to patch should consider the following workarounds:

- Review your PERMISSIONS clauses and remove any containing CREATE, UPDATE, DELETE, RELATE, INSERT, or UPSERT. - Limit who can define schema and vet imported data — such a clause must be defined before it can be triggered.

Resources

- DEFINE TABLE … PERMISSIONS - DEFINE FIELD - fix(core): reject writes in PERMISSIONS clauses and block writes during permission evaluation (included in SurrealDB 3.2.0)

Acknowledgements

Thank you to sondt99 for reporting this issue.

Affected Software

1 affected componentFixes available
rust/surrealdb-core<3.2.0
3.2.0

Remediation

Recommended actions to resolve this vulnerability, in priority order.

  1. Upgrade

    Upgrade rust/surrealdb-core to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Fixed in 3.2.0
  2. Upgrade

    Upgrade SurrealDB to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Fixed in 3.2.0Patch fix(core): reject writes in PERMISSIONS clauses and block writes during permission evaluation
  3. Configuration

    Review all `PERMISSIONS` clauses and ensure none contain write/data-modifying operations such as `CREATE`, `UPDATE`, `DELETE`, `RELATE`, `INSERT`, or `UPSERT`.

    SurrealDB PERMISSIONS clauses PERMISSIONS clause contents (data-modifying statements) = Remove any containing CREATE, UPDATE, DELETE, RELATE, INSERT, or UPSERT
  4. Compensating control

    For users unable to patch, avoid guarded write execution by removing the guarded `WHERE` predicate logic that can disable enforcement; the material workaround example given is: `WHERE (CREATE log SET at = time::now()) OR true;` (use only as described in the workaround section to prevent the problematic permission evaluation path).

Event History

Sep 4, 2026
Advisory Published
via GitHub·08:50 PM
Data Sourced
via GitHub·08:50 PM
DescriptionSeverityWeaknessAffected Software

Frequently Asked Questions

1

Which permission configurations are affected?

Only databases with a PERMISSIONS clause that contains a data-modifying statement are affected. FULL, NONE, and read-only permission clauses are not affected.

2

What access does an attacker need to trigger unauthorized writes?

The attacker needs permission to perform the operation guarded by the vulnerable permission clause. A low-privileged or record-level user is sufficient if they can trigger that guarded operation.

3

Can one request cause more than one unauthorized write?

Yes. The permission clause is evaluated once for each matched record, so a single statement can cause multiple writes and may trigger unintended events, cascades, or data corruption.

Contact

SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
132 Wickham Terrace
Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, Australia
info@secalerts.co
By using SecAlerts services, you agree to our services end-user license agreement. This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA and governed by the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. All names, logos, and brands of products are owned by their respective owners, and any usage of these names, logos, and brands for identification purposes only does not imply endorsement. If you possess any content that requires removal, please get in touch with us.
© 2026 SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
ABN: 70 645 966 203, ACN: 645 966 203