ghsa-hr9r-8phq-5x8j
Vulnerability from github
Overview
OpenFGA versions v1.1.0 and prior are vulnerable to a DoS attack when certain Check and ListObjects calls are executed against authorization models that contain circular relationship definitions.
Am I Affected?
You are affected by this vulnerability if you are using OpenFGA v1.1.0 or earlier, and if you are executing certain Check or ListObjects calls against a vulnerable authorization model. To see which of your models could be vulnerable to this attack, download OpenFGA v1.2.0 and run the following command:
./openfga validate-models --datastore-engine <ENGINE> --datastore-uri <URI> | jq .[] | select(.Error | contains("loop"))
replacing the variables <ENGINE> and <URI> as needed.
Fix
Upgrade to v1.1.1.
Backward Compatibility
If you are not passing an invalid authorization model (as identified by running ./openfga validate-models) as a parameter of your Check and ListObjects calls, this upgrade is backwards compatible.
Otherwise, OpenFGA v1.1.1 will start returning HTTP 400 status codes on those calls.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.1.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-35933"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-835"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-06-28T22:49:49Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-26T20:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Overview\n\nOpenFGA versions v1.1.0 and prior are vulnerable to a DoS attack when certain Check and ListObjects calls are executed against authorization models that contain circular relationship definitions.\n\n### Am I Affected?\n\nYou are affected by this vulnerability if you are using OpenFGA v1.1.0 or earlier, and if you are executing certain [Check](https://openfga.dev/api/service#/Relationship%20Queries/Check) or [ListObjects](https://openfga.dev/api/service#/Relationship%20Queries/ListObjects) calls against a vulnerable authorization model. To see which of your models could be vulnerable to this attack, download OpenFGA v1.2.0 and run the following command: \n\n```\n./openfga validate-models --datastore-engine \u003cENGINE\u003e --datastore-uri \u003cURI\u003e | jq .[] | select(.Error | contains(\"loop\"))\n```\n\nreplacing the variables `\u003cENGINE\u003e` and `\u003cURI\u003e` as needed.\n\n### Fix\n\nUpgrade to v1.1.1.\n\n### Backward Compatibility\n\nIf you are not passing an invalid authorization model (as identified by running `./openfga validate-models`) as a parameter of your Check and ListObjects calls, this upgrade is backwards compatible. \n\nOtherwise, OpenFGA v1.1.1 will start returning HTTP 400 status codes on those calls.",
"id": "GHSA-hr9r-8phq-5x8j",
"modified": "2023-07-03T18:39:26Z",
"published": "2023-06-28T22:49:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/security/advisories/GHSA-hr9r-8phq-5x8j"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-35933"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/commit/087ce392595f3c319ab3028b5089118ea4063452"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://openfga.dev/api/service#/Relationship%20Queries/Check"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://openfga.dev/api/service#/Relationship%20Queries/ListObjects"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "OpenFGA vulnerable to denial of service due to circular relationship"
}
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.