GHSA-FWG2-GR34-Q3W8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-01 20:23 – Updated: 2026-07-01 20:23When a user configures ALGORITHM ES512 for any JWT access method (DEFINE ACCESS ... TYPE JWT ALGORITHM ES512), SurrealDB silently substitutes ES384 at all four internal algorithm conversion points. This occurs because the underlying jsonwebtoken crate (v10.x) does not include an ES512 algorithm variant, so the mapping defaults to ES384 without raising an error, warning, or log message.
Users who provide the correct P-521 key type for ES512 will experience authentication handshake failures due to the curve mismatch with ES384 (which expects P-384).
Impact
Authentication handshake failures when using ES512 with the correct P-521 key type, and when tokens are verified by external systems expecting real ES512 signatures.
This vulnerability cannot be exploited to forge tokens or compromise the integrity or confidentiality of data handled by SurrealDB, as ES384 remains cryptographically strong.
Patches
Versions prior to SurrealDB v3.1.0 are vulnerable.
The patches for SurrealDB v3.1.0 block new DEFINE ACCESS statements using ALGORITHM ES512 with a clear error message and add deprecation warnings at runtime for existing stored ES512 definitions.
Workarounds
Users should reconfigure affected JWT access methods to use a supported algorithm such as ES384 (with a P-384 key pair) or another supported algorithm. Review any DEFINE ACCESS statements specifying ALGORITHM ES512 and update them accordingly.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "surrealdb"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-01T20:23:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "When a user configures `ALGORITHM ES512` for any JWT access method (`DEFINE ACCESS ... TYPE JWT ALGORITHM ES512`), SurrealDB silently substitutes ES384 at all four internal algorithm conversion points. This occurs because the underlying `jsonwebtoken` crate (v10.x) does not include an ES512 algorithm variant, so the mapping defaults to ES384 without raising an error, warning, or log message.\n \nUsers who provide the correct P-521 key type for ES512 will experience authentication handshake failures due to the curve mismatch with ES384 (which expects P-384).\n \n### Impact\n \nAuthentication handshake failures when using ES512 with the correct P-521 key type, and when tokens are verified by external systems expecting real ES512 signatures. \n \nThis vulnerability cannot be exploited to forge tokens or compromise the integrity or confidentiality of data handled by SurrealDB, as ES384 remains cryptographically strong.\n\n### Patches\n \nVersions prior to SurrealDB `v3.1.0` are vulnerable.\n \nThe patches for SurrealDB `v3.1.0` block new `DEFINE ACCESS` statements using `ALGORITHM ES512` with a clear error message and add deprecation warnings at runtime for existing stored ES512 definitions.\n\n### Workarounds\n \nUsers should reconfigure affected JWT access methods to use a supported algorithm such as ES384 (with a P-384 key pair) or another supported algorithm. Review any `DEFINE ACCESS` statements specifying `ALGORITHM ES512` and update them accordingly.",
"id": "GHSA-fwg2-gr34-q3w8",
"modified": "2026-07-01T20:23:01Z",
"published": "2026-07-01T20:23:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/security/advisories/GHSA-fwg2-gr34-q3w8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/pull/7226"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb/commit/bd043d73dad583219d7df2b91f81ab0054c53730"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/surrealdb/surrealdb"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SurrealDB: ES512 silently downgraded to ES384 due to jsonwebtoken crate limitation"
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.