GHSA-66r2-5gwj-gxm2: Medium severity rust/surrealdb-core vulnerability
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
Remediation
Recommended actions to resolve this vulnerability, in priority order.
- Upgrade
Upgrade
rust/surrealdb-coreto a version that resolves this vulnerability.Fixed in 3.2.0 - Upgrade
Upgrade
SurrealDBto a version that resolves this vulnerability.Fixed in 3.2.0Patch fix(core): reject writes in PERMISSIONS clauses and block writes during permission evaluation - 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 - 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
Frequently Asked Questions
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.
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.
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.