{"items":[{"id":"NVI-00008844","kind":"vulnerability","title":"Cedar: JSON template is in scope missing slot-id validation allows link panic and decision divergence","revision":2,"unknowns":["Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected."],"lifecycle":"active","identifiers":["GHSA-c33x-vcv4-vg3g"],"plain_summary":"GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for cedar-policy, cedar-policy, @cedar-policy/cedar-wasm, @cedar-policy/cedar-wasm. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.","review_status":"source_listed","control_topics":[],"public_actions":[{"summary":"Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.","source_ids":["sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0"],"action_type":"investigate","limitations":"Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system.","current_supported_target":null},{"summary":"The original advisory lists fixed boundaries 4.11.1 for @cedar-policy/cedar-wasm. Confirm the publisher’s latest guidance.","source_ids":["sr-80ec40b4f73d65d5ab45f3134372aeae"],"action_type":"vendor_patch","limitations":"Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system.","current_supported_target":null},{"summary":"The original advisory lists fixed boundaries 3.4.3 for @cedar-policy/cedar-wasm. Confirm the publisher’s latest guidance.","source_ids":["sr-80ec40b4f73d65d5ab45f3134372aeae"],"action_type":"vendor_patch","limitations":"Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system.","current_supported_target":null}],"schema_version":"1.1.0","source_metrics":[],"why_it_matters":"Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.","related_sources":[{"id":"sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0","url":"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-c33x-vcv4-vg3g","basis":"vendor_advisory","notes":"GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.","title":"GHSA-c33x-vcv4-vg3g","publisher":"GitHub Advisory Database","observed_at":"2026-10-31T21:56:08.420Z"},{"id":"sr-80ec40b4f73d65d5ab45f3134372aeae","url":"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-c33x-vcv4-vg3g","basis":"vendor_advisory","notes":"GitHub-origin advisory, CC-BY-4.0; OSV is an aggregate copy, not independent corroboration.","title":"GHSA-c33x-vcv4-vg3g","publisher":"GitHub Advisory Database via OSV","observed_at":"2026-11-01T01:40:43.452Z"}],"affected_context":[{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0"],"technology":"cedar-policy","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":[">= 4.0.0, < 4.11.1"]},{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0"],"technology":"cedar-policy","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":[">= 3.0.0, < 3.4.3"]},{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0"],"technology":"@cedar-policy/cedar-wasm","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":[">= 4.0.1, < 4.11.1"]},{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0"],"technology":"@cedar-policy/cedar-wasm","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":[">= 3.2.0, < 3.4.3"]},{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-80ec40b4f73d65d5ab45f3134372aeae"],"technology":"cedar-policy","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":["SEMVER: introduced 4.0.0; fixed 4.11.1"]},{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-80ec40b4f73d65d5ab45f3134372aeae"],"technology":"cedar-policy","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":["SEMVER: introduced 3.0.0; fixed 3.4.3"]},{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-80ec40b4f73d65d5ab45f3134372aeae"],"technology":"@cedar-policy/cedar-wasm","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":["SEMVER: introduced 4.0.1; fixed 4.11.1"]},{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-80ec40b4f73d65d5ab45f3134372aeae"],"technology":"@cedar-policy/cedar-wasm","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":["SEMVER: introduced 3.2.0; fixed 3.4.3"]}],"null_published_at":"2026-11-01T14:34:14.085Z","source_updated_at":"2026-10-29T16:35:08.000Z","source_disclosed_at":"2026-10-29T16:35:04.000Z","is_synthetic_fixture":false,"null_last_reviewed_at":null,"public_change_summary":"Source facts changed; compare the preserved prior revision.","null_first_observed_at":"2026-10-31T21:56:08.420Z"},{"id":"NVI-00008844","kind":"vulnerability","title":"Cedar: JSON template is in scope missing slot-id validation allows link panic and decision divergence","revision":1,"unknowns":["Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected."],"lifecycle":"active","identifiers":["GHSA-c33x-vcv4-vg3g"],"plain_summary":"GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for cedar-policy, cedar-policy, @cedar-policy/cedar-wasm, @cedar-policy/cedar-wasm. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.","review_status":"source_listed","control_topics":[],"public_actions":[{"summary":"Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.","source_ids":["sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0"],"action_type":"investigate","limitations":"Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system.","current_supported_target":null}],"schema_version":"1.1.0","source_metrics":[],"why_it_matters":"Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.","related_sources":[{"id":"sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0","url":"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-c33x-vcv4-vg3g","basis":"vendor_advisory","notes":"GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.","title":"GHSA-c33x-vcv4-vg3g","publisher":"GitHub Advisory Database","observed_at":"2026-10-31T21:56:08.420Z"}],"affected_context":[{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0"],"technology":"cedar-policy","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":[">= 4.0.0, < 4.11.1"]},{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0"],"technology":"cedar-policy","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":[">= 3.0.0, < 3.4.3"]},{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0"],"technology":"@cedar-policy/cedar-wasm","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":[">= 4.0.1, < 4.11.1"]},{"certainty":"source_listed","source_ids":["sr-0010f27dc5241a19d66f7a250fc7d2f0"],"technology":"@cedar-policy/cedar-wasm","known_exclusions":[],"conditions_summary":"Cedar users must be using all of the following features to be affected by this advisory: JSON format policies, policy templates, and the `is in` scope condition. This advisory only affects JSON-formatted Cedar policy templates containing `is in` scope conditions that are **malformed** according to the Cedar syntax. It does **not** affect syntactically well-formed policies.\n\nUsers of Cedar who author policies in the JSON format were able to write Cedar policies using the `is in` condition with an incorrect slot identifier in the principal and resource scope constraints (e.g., `?principal` in the resource scope constraint) even though this is not allowed when parsing policies from the Cedar policy syntax. Internally, the slot identifiers were silently corrected (e.g. `?resource` is placed in the resource scope constraint). \n\nIf the policy contains *exactly one slot* in either the principal or resource position, then any attempt to create a linked policy from the template results in an error: the internal representation of the template does not contain the slot identifier as written in the malformed JSON policy (it has been corrected silently), so attempting to fill that slot is an er","public_affected_ranges":[">= 3.2.0, < 3.4.3"]}],"null_published_at":"2026-10-31T22:13:27.119Z","source_updated_at":"2026-10-29T16:35:08.000Z","source_disclosed_at":"2026-10-29T16:35:04.000Z","is_synthetic_fixture":false,"null_last_reviewed_at":null,"public_change_summary":"First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.","null_first_observed_at":"2026-10-31T21:56:08.420Z"}],"next_cursor":null,"snapshot_revision":"42594"}