CVE-2026-24851
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedOpenFGA is a high-performance and flexible authorization/permission engine built for developers and inspired by Google Zanzibar. OpenFGA v1.8.5 to v1.11.2 ( openfga-0.2.22<= Helm chart <= openfga-0.2.51, v.1.8.5 <= docker <= v.1.11.2) are vulnerable to improper policy enforcement when certain Check calls are executed. The vulnerability requires a model that has a a relation directly assignable by a type bound public access and assignable by type bound non-public access, a tuple assigned for the relation that is a type bound public access, a tuple assigned for the same object with the same relation that is not type bound public access, and a tuple assigned for a different object that has an object ID lexicographically larger with the same user and relation which is not type bound public access. This vulnerability is fixed in v1.11.3.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceOpenFGA versions 1.8.5 through 1.11.2 contain an improper policy enforcement vulnerability in the Check call logic. When a model has relations that can be assigned both by type-bound public access (e.g., *) and type-bound non-public access, and specific tuple combinations exist (public access tuple, non-public access tuple for same object, and non-public access tuple for lexicographically larger object ID), the authorization engine incorrectly evaluates the access check, potentially allowing unauthorized access.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 0.2.22, < 0.2.51>= 1.8.5, < 1.11.3CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check OpenFGA server versionQuery the OpenFGA server version endpoint (e.g., GET /health or inspect the container image tag / binary version) and compare it against the affected range >= 1.8.5 and < 1.11.3Affected if The installed version falls within >= 1.8.5 and < 1.11.3 (or Helm chart version >= 0.2.22 and < 0.2.51)
-
Review authorization models for type-bound public access usageList all authorization models via the /v1/authorization-models endpoint and inspect each model for relations defined with type-bound public access (using the public wildcard syntax like type:resource#relation@*)Affected if Any authorization model contains relations assignable by type-bound public access
-
Identify models with mixed assignabilityFor each authorization model found in step 2, check if any relation has BOTH type-bound public access AND type-bound non-public access defined as assignable types (e.g., relation defined with multiple type restrictions including @* and specific user types)Affected if A relation has both type-bound public access (@*) AND type-bound non-public access listed as assignable types
-
Examine tuples for lexicographically ordered object IDsQuery existing tuples via /v1/tuple_keys or similar endpoint and inspect the object field values for relations identified in step 3; check if object IDs follow lexicographic ordering patterns that could trigger the conditionAffected if Tuples exist for the affected relations with object IDs in lexicographically ordered sequences
You are affected if your OpenFGA version is between 1.8.5 and 1.11.3 (or Helm chart 0.2.22-0.2.50) AND you use authorization models with relations having both type-bound public and non-public access assignability under specific tuple conditions.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped0.2.511.11.3
Upgrade OpenFGA to v1.11.3 or later. Review existing authorization models and tuples for configurations matching the vulnerability pattern (relations assignable by both type-bound public and non-public access with specific tuple combinations).
OpenFGA v1.11.3 or later (Helm chart 0.2.51 or later)
- Upgrade OpenFGA from any version >= 1.8.5 and < 1.11.3 to version 1.11.3 or later
- If using Helm charts, upgrade the openfga Helm chart from version >= 0.2.22 and < 0.2.51 to version 0.2.51 or later
- Verify the upgrade by running your authorization Check calls to confirm the vulnerability is resolved
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-24851 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-24851 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data