CVE-2026-49997

mediumpriority · track · 0OT risk · elevatedEPSS 0.003 · 28 %ileEUUS
grimoire priorityP3 · Track
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.35% (28th) EPSS
CVSS 5.4 · medium
Is it mine?
2 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
3 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · osv

EPSS · scored 2026-10-28

SurrealDB is a scalable, distributed, collaborative, document-graph database for the realtime web. Prior to 3.1.0, Document::purge_edges in surrealdb/core/src/doc/delete.rs automatically removed graph edge records with permissions disabled through opt.clone().with_perms(false) when a connected node was deleted, bypassing the edge table's PERMISSIONS FOR delete and PERMISSIONS FOR select clauses. This issue is fixed in version 3.1.0.

01

cvss

Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.

5.4
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode

v3.15.4mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · ENISA EU
v3.15.4mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · security-advisories@github.comexploitability 2.8 · impact 2.5
v3.15.4mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · OSV
v3.15mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N/E:Usecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

ssvc

A stakeholder decision — act, attend, or track — from exploitation and impact.

Trackcoordinatorcisa_ssvcUS
03

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

04

affected products (2)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

05

advisories (1)

Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.

  • GHSA-whwg-vh4f-pmmfSurrealDB: Edge PERMISSIONS FOR delete bypassed when a connected node is deleted2026-07-01ghsa · osvUS

    In SurrealDB, records can be connected as a graph: a `RELATE` statement creates an edge record between two node records. If either endpoint node is deleted, SurrealDB automatically removes the edge row to keep the graph consistent. A user with permission to delete a node could also delete the edges connected to that node, even when the edge table's `PERMISSIONS FOR delete` clause should have stopped them. The automatic edge removal (`Document::purge_edges`) ran with permissions disabled (`opt.clone().with_perms(false)`), so the edge table's `PERMISSIONS FOR delete` and `PERMISSIONS FOR select` clauses were never consulted. The removal step could also observe edge state that the edge's SELECT clause should have hidden. ### Impact What an attacker **can** do: - Delete any edge connected to a node they can delete, regardless of the edge table's `PERMISSIONS FOR delete` clause. - Observe edge contents that `PERMISSIONS FOR select` should have hidden, as a side effect of the same edge-removal step. What it **can't** do: - Delete nodes on tables they do not hold `DELETE` on (the edge removal only runs from an authorised node delete). - Cross namespace or database isolation boundaries. - Escalate to root or operator-level privileges. ### Patches `Document::purge_edges` now propagates the caller's permission context into the edge removal. Each connected edge `DELETE` is evaluated against the edge table's `PERMISSIONS FOR delete` clause, matching a direct `DELETE`. Versions 3.1.0 and later are not affected. ### Workarounds - Restrict node `DELETE` permission to principals trusted to delete all connected edge records. - Use namespace or database isolation as the primary boundary where edge-level `PERMISSIONS` is load-bearing for multi-tenant separation.

06

also known as (3)

Other names and identifiers for this entity.

07

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

published 2026-07-15modified 2026-07-20
08

references (9)

External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.

scry

Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.

Free scan