ghsa-75m2-jhh5-j5g2
Vulnerability from github
Impact
Summary
A vulnerability in Apollo Router allowed queries with deeply nested and reused named fragments to be prohibitively expensive to query plan, specifically during named fragment expansion. This could lead to excessive resource consumption and denial of service.
Details
Named fragments were being expanded once per fragment spread during query planning, leading to exponential resource usage when deeply nested and reused fragments were involved.
Fix/Mitigation
A new Query Fragment Expansion Limit metric has been introduced: - This metric computes the number of selections a query would have if its fragment spreads were fully expanded. - The metric is checked against a limit to prevent excessive computation.
Patches
This has been remediated in apollo-router
versions 1.61.2 and 2.1.1.
Workarounds
The only known workaround is "Safelisting" or "Safelisting with IDs only" per Safelisting with Persisted Queries - Apollo GraphQL Docs.
References
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the efforts of the security community in identifying and improving the performance and security of query planning mechanisms.
{ "affected": [ { "package": { "ecosystem": "crates.io", "name": "apollo-router" }, "ranges": [ { "events": [ { "introduced": "0" }, { "fixed": "1.61.2" } ], "type": "ECOSYSTEM" } ] }, { "package": { "ecosystem": "crates.io", "name": "apollo-router" }, "ranges": [ { "events": [ { "introduced": "2.0.0-alpha.0" }, { "fixed": "2.1.1" } ], "type": "ECOSYSTEM" } ] } ], "aliases": [ "CVE-2025-32034" ], "database_specific": { "cwe_ids": [ "CWE-770" ], "github_reviewed": true, "github_reviewed_at": "2025-04-07T18:57:56Z", "nvd_published_at": "2025-04-07T21:15:43Z", "severity": "HIGH" }, "details": "# Impact\n\n## Summary\n\nA vulnerability in Apollo Router allowed queries with deeply nested and reused named fragments to be prohibitively expensive to query plan, specifically during named fragment expansion. This could lead to excessive resource consumption and denial of service.\n\n## Details\n\nNamed fragments were being expanded once per fragment spread during query planning, leading to exponential resource usage when deeply nested and reused fragments were involved.\n\n## Fix/Mitigation\n\nA new **Query Fragment Expansion Limit** metric has been introduced:\n - This metric computes the number of selections a query would have if its fragment spreads were fully expanded.\n - The metric is checked against a limit to prevent excessive computation.\n\n# Patches\n\nThis has been remediated in `apollo-router` versions 1.61.2 and 2.1.1.\n\n# Workarounds\n\nThe only known workaround is \"Safelisting\" or \"Safelisting with IDs only\" per [Safelisting with Persisted Queries - Apollo GraphQL Docs](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/graphos/routing/security/persisted-queries#router-security-levels).\n\n# References\n\n[Query Planning Documentation](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/graphos/reference/federation/query-plans)\n\n## Acknowledgements\n\nWe appreciate the efforts of the security community in identifying and improving the performance and security of query planning mechanisms.", "id": "GHSA-75m2-jhh5-j5g2", "modified": "2025-04-08T17:50:03Z", "published": "2025-04-07T18:57:56Z", "references": [ { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://github.com/apollographql/router/security/advisories/GHSA-75m2-jhh5-j5g2" }, { "type": "ADVISORY", "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-32034" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://github.com/apollographql/router/commit/ab6675a63174715ea6ff50881fc957831d4e9564" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://github.com/apollographql/router/commit/bba032e183b861348a466d3123c7137a1ae18952" }, { "type": "PACKAGE", "url": "https://github.com/apollographql/router" } ], "schema_version": "1.4.0", "severity": [ { "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H", "type": "CVSS_V3" } ], "summary": "Apollo Router Query Planner Vulnerable to Excessive Resource Consumption via Named Fragment Expansion" }
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.