CVE-2026-55772 (GCVE-0-2026-55772)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2026-07-13 18:44
Modified
2026-07-21 19:02
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
EPSS score ?
CWE
- CWE-843 - Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')
Summary
CedarJava is an open source Java implementation of the Cedar policy language, used for fine-grained authorization decisions. In versions prior to 2.3.6, 3.4.1 and 4.9.0, under certain circumstances, improper input handling could allow Record-to-Entity type confusion across the Java-Rust FFI boundary. CedarJava sends authorization requests to the Rust cedar-policy evaluator as JSON. The JSON protocol reserves magic single-key object shapes (__entity and __extn) for entity references and extension values. When serializing a CedarMap, there is no validation preventing these reserved keys from being used. If an integrating service builds a CedarMap from caller-supplied key/value data (such as request headers, user-defined metadata, or resource tags), an actor who controls those keys could cause the Rust evaluator to interpret a record as an entity reference. This issue requires the integrating service to build a CedarMap where the an actor controls the keys, and a policy must reference that value in a when/unless clause. This vulnerability has been fixed in versions 2.3.6, 3.4.1, and 4.9.
References
| URL | Tags | |
|---|---|---|
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cedar-policy | cedar-java |
Version: < 2.3.6 Version: >= 3.1.2, < 3.4.1 Version: >= 4.0.0, < 4.9.0 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-55772",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-07-21T19:02:38.661180Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-07-21T19:02:48.982Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "cedar-java",
"vendor": "cedar-policy",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 2.3.6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 3.1.2, \u003c 3.4.1"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 4.0.0, \u003c 4.9.0"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CedarJava is an open source Java implementation of the Cedar policy language, used for fine-grained authorization decisions. In versions prior to 2.3.6, 3.4.1 and 4.9.0, under certain circumstances, improper input handling could allow Record-to-Entity type confusion across the Java-Rust FFI boundary. CedarJava sends authorization requests to the Rust cedar-policy evaluator as JSON. The JSON protocol reserves magic single-key object shapes (__entity and __extn) for entity references and extension values. When serializing a CedarMap, there is no validation preventing these reserved keys from being used. If an integrating service builds a CedarMap from caller-supplied key/value data (such as request headers, user-defined metadata, or resource tags), an actor who controls those keys could cause the Rust evaluator to interpret a record as an entity reference. This issue requires the integrating service to build a CedarMap where the an actor controls the keys, and a policy must reference that value in a when/unless clause. This vulnerability has been fixed in versions 2.3.6, 3.4.1, and 4.9."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 8.8,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-843",
"description": "CWE-843: Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type (\u0027Type Confusion\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-07-13T18:44:47.577Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/cedar-policy/cedar-java/security/advisories/GHSA-93g4-m6xv-cmvr",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/cedar-policy/cedar-java/security/advisories/GHSA-93g4-m6xv-cmvr"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-93g4-m6xv-cmvr",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "CedarJava has a type confusion vulnerability"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-55772",
"datePublished": "2026-07-13T18:44:47.577Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-06-17T14:34:51.881Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-07-21T19:02:48.982Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-55772\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"total\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-07-21T19:02:38.661180Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-07-21T19:02:45.599Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"CedarJava has a type confusion vulnerability\", \"source\": {\"advisory\": \"GHSA-93g4-m6xv-cmvr\", \"discovery\": \"UNKNOWN\"}, \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV3_1\": {\"scope\": \"UNCHANGED\", \"version\": \"3.1\", \"baseScore\": 8.8, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"HIGH\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H\", \"integrityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"LOW\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\"}}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"cedar-policy\", \"product\": \"cedar-java\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003c 2.3.6\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003e= 3.1.2, \u003c 3.4.1\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"\u003e= 4.0.0, \u003c 4.9.0\"}]}], \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://github.com/cedar-policy/cedar-java/security/advisories/GHSA-93g4-m6xv-cmvr\", \"name\": \"https://github.com/cedar-policy/cedar-java/security/advisories/GHSA-93g4-m6xv-cmvr\", \"tags\": [\"x_refsource_CONFIRM\"]}], \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"CedarJava is an open source Java implementation of the Cedar policy language, used for fine-grained authorization decisions. In versions prior to 2.3.6, 3.4.1 and 4.9.0, under certain circumstances, improper input handling could allow Record-to-Entity type confusion across the Java-Rust FFI boundary. CedarJava sends authorization requests to the Rust cedar-policy evaluator as JSON. The JSON protocol reserves magic single-key object shapes (__entity and __extn) for entity references and extension values. When serializing a CedarMap, there is no validation preventing these reserved keys from being used. If an integrating service builds a CedarMap from caller-supplied key/value data (such as request headers, user-defined metadata, or resource tags), an actor who controls those keys could cause the Rust evaluator to interpret a record as an entity reference. This issue requires the integrating service to build a CedarMap where the an actor controls the keys, and a policy must reference that value in a when/unless clause. This vulnerability has been fixed in versions 2.3.6, 3.4.1, and 4.9.\"}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-843\", \"description\": \"CWE-843: Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type (\u0027Type Confusion\u0027)\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa\", \"shortName\": \"GitHub_M\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-07-13T18:44:47.577Z\"}}}",
"cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-55772\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-07-21T19:02:48.982Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-06-17T14:34:51.881Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-07-13T18:44:47.577Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"GitHub_M\"}",
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…