CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2022-21646NVD status: Modified

SpiceDB is a database system for managing security-critical application permissions.

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2022-21646 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in spicedb from Authzed, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.1 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected spicedb versions: = 1.3.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 1.32% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 71% of scored CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Check which version of spicedb you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
Authzedspicedb= 1.3.0Not stated

Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Privileges required
LowA basic user account is enough.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
Confidentiality
HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
Integrity
HighData or code can be modified at will.
Availability
NoneAvailability is not affected.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N. Scored by NVD.

Scoring systemScoreSeverityScored by
CVSS 3.18.1HighCNA (github.com)
CVSS 3.18.1HighNVD
CVSS 2.05.5MediumNVD

Official description

SpiceDB is a database system for managing security-critical application permissions. Any user making use of a wildcard relationship under the right hand branch of an `exclusion` or within an `intersection` operation will see `Lookup`/`LookupResources` return a resource as "accessible" if it is *not* accessible by virtue of the inclusion of the wildcard in the intersection or the right side of the exclusion. In `v1.3.0`, the wildcard is ignored entirely in lookup's dispatch, resulting in the `banned` wildcard being ignored in the exclusion. Version 1.4.0 contains a patch for this issue. As a workaround, don't make use of wildcards on the right side of intersections or within exclusions.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
  • Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.

More Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities (CWE-20)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Patches and release notes

Third-party and government advisories

Other vulnerabilities in spicedb

All spicedb vulnerabilities

Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.