vulnerability / NVI-00017797 / Revision 1
SpiceDB: Checks involving relations with caveats can result in unconditional permission when conditional permission is expected
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for github.com/authzed/spicedb. 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.
3.7 low
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
github.com/authzed/spicedb
source listed>= 1.34.0, < 1.54.0
### Impact Under concurrency, `CheckPermission` and `CheckBulkPermissions` can return `PERMISSIONSHIP_HAS_PERMISSION` for a (resource, permission, subject) whose correct answer is `PERMISSIONSHIP_CONDITIONAL_PERMISSION`. You are impacted if **all** of the following hold: 1. Your schema has a permission combining relations with an intersection or exclusion, where a subject reaches it through a caveated branch and a non-caveated branch. For example: ```zed definition user {} caveat some_caveat(somecondition int) { somecondition == 42 } definition document { relation reader: user | user with some_caveat relation writer: user relation banned: user permission has_permission = (reader & writer) - banned } ``` 2. A subject reaches the permission via the caveated edge: ``` document:firstdoc#reader@user:caveatedreader[some_caveat] document:firstdoc#writer@user:caveatedreader ``` 3. Your workload issues `LookupResources` with a `context` request parameter, concurrently with `CheckPermission/CheckBulkPermissions` for the same subject/resource, and 4. The dispatch result cache is enabled. When all of the above are true, there is an intermitten
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
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-4vrg-r928-h5vv ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
Public revision history
Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.