vulnerability / NVI-00008844 / Revision 2
Cedar: JSON template is in scope missing slot-id validation allows link panic and decision divergence
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.
This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.
01 / Meaning
Why it matters
Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
cedar-policy
source listed>= 4.0.0, < 4.11.1
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. Users 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). If 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
cedar-policy
source listed>= 3.0.0, < 3.4.3
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. Users 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). If 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
@cedar-policy/cedar-wasm
source listed>= 4.0.1, < 4.11.1
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. Users 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). If 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
@cedar-policy/cedar-wasm
source listed>= 3.2.0, < 3.4.3
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. Users 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). If 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
cedar-policy
source listedSEMVER: introduced 4.0.0; fixed 4.11.1
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. Users 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). If 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
cedar-policy
source listedSEMVER: introduced 3.0.0; fixed 3.4.3
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. Users 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). If 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
@cedar-policy/cedar-wasm
source listedSEMVER: introduced 4.0.1; fixed 4.11.1
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. Users 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). If 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
@cedar-policy/cedar-wasm
source listedSEMVER: introduced 3.2.0; fixed 3.4.3
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. Users 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). If 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
03 / Response
What to do next
- investigate
Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database
- vendor patch
The original advisory lists fixed boundaries 4.11.1 for @cedar-policy/cedar-wasm. Confirm the publisher’s latest guidance.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database via OSV
- vendor patch
The original advisory lists fixed boundaries 3.4.3 for @cedar-policy/cedar-wasm. Confirm the publisher’s latest guidance.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database via OSV
A fixed release is not deployment evidence.
Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.
04 / Limits
What this report cannot establish
- Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
05 / Provenance
Sources you can inspect
Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.
- GHSA-c33x-vcv4-vg3g ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
- GHSA-c33x-vcv4-vg3g ↗
GitHub Advisory Database via OSV · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub-origin advisory, CC-BY-4.0; OSV is an aggregate copy, not independent corroboration.
Public revision history
Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.
- Revision 2 ·
Source facts changed; compare the preserved prior revision.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.