Skip to content

SurrealDB Affected by Confused Deputy Privilege Escalation through Future Fields and Functions

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jan 22, 2026 in surrealdb/surrealdb • Updated Jan 22, 2026

Package

cargo surrealdb (Rust)

Affected versions

< 2.5.0
>= 3.0.0-alpha.1, < 3.0.0-beta.3

Patched versions

2.5.0
3.0.0-beta.3

Description

Unprivileged users (for example, those with the database editor role) can create or modify fields in records that contain functions or futures. Futures are values which are only computed when the value is queried. The query executes in the context of the querying user, rather than the user who originally defined the future. Likewise, fields containing functions or custom-defined logic (closures) are executed under the privileges of the invoking user, not the creator.

This results in a confused deputy vulnerability: an attacker with limited privileges can define a malicious function or future field that performs privileged actions. When a higher-privileged user (such as a root owner or namespace administrator) executes the function or queries or modifies that record, the function executes with their elevated permissions.

Impact

An attacker who can create or update function/future fields can plant logic that executes with a privileged user’s context. If a privileged user performs a write that touches the malicious field, the attacker can achieve full privilege escalation (e.g., create a root owner and take over the server).

If a privileged user performs a read action on the malicious field, this attack vector could still be potentially be used to perform limited denial of service or, in the specific case where the network capability was explicitly enabled and unrestricted, exfiltrate database information over the network.

Patches

Versions prior to 2.5.0 and 3.0.0-beta.3 are vulnerable.

For SurrealDB 3.0, futures are no longer supported, replaced by computed fields, only available within schemaful tables.

Further to this patches for 2.5.0 and 3.0.0-beta.3:

  • Implements an auth_limit on defined apis, functions, fields and events, that limits execution to the permissions of the creating user instead of the invoking user.
  • Prevents closures from being stored, that eliminates a potential attack surface. For 2.5.0 this can still be allowed by using the insecure_storable_closures capability
  • Ensures the proper auth level is used to compute expressions in signin & signup

Workarounds

Users unable to patch are advised to evaluate their use of the database to identify where low privileged users are able to define logic subsequently executed by privileged users, such as apis, functions, futures fields and events, and recommended to minimise these instances.

References

Futures
Closures
SurrealDB Environment Variables

References

@rowan-baker rowan-baker published to surrealdb/surrealdb Jan 22, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jan 22, 2026
Reviewed Jan 22, 2026
Last updated Jan 22, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required Low
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')

The product receives a request, message, or directive from an upstream component, but the product does not sufficiently preserve the original source of the request before forwarding the request to an external actor that is outside of the product's control sphere. This causes the product to appear to be the source of the request, leading it to act as a proxy or other intermediary between the upstream component and the external actor. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-3v2x-9xcv-2v2v

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.