CVE-2026-33729
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. In versions prior to 1.13.1, under specific conditions, models using conditions with caching enabled can result in two different check requests producing the same cache key. This can result in OpenFGA reusing an earlier cached result for a different request. Users are affected if the model has relations which rely on condition evaluation andncaching is enabled. OpenFGA v1.13.1 contains a patch.
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 prior to 1.13.1 have a cache key collision vulnerability where authorization models using condition evaluation with caching enabled can cause different check requests to produce identical cache keys, resulting in incorrect cached authorization results being returned for requests they were not intended for.
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< 1.13.1CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 versionRun 'openfga version' or query the server's /healthz endpoint to retrieve the version stringAffected if Version is earlier than 1.13.1 (e.g., 1.13.0, 1.12.x, etc.)
-
Verify condition caching configurationInspect the OpenFGA server configuration file or environment variables for 'conditions' or 'cache' settings, or query the server's /v1/flags endpoint if availableAffected if Condition caching is explicitly enabled in the configuration (e.g., conditions: enabled or cache enabled for conditions)
-
Identify authorization models using conditionsQuery the OpenFGA server using the ListObjects API or examine stored authorization model JSON definitions to find models that define 'conditions' within their type definitionsAffected if Any authorization model in the store defines and uses condition expressions (e.g., condition names like 'ip_range_check' or 'time_window')
You are affected if running OpenFGA version < 1.13.1 AND condition caching is enabled AND at least one authorization model uses condition evaluation.
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 · scoped1.13.1
Upgrade OpenFGA to version 1.13.1 or later. Until then, disabling condition caching may reduce but not eliminate risk.
OpenFGA v1.13.1 or later
- Check current OpenFGA version (docker image tag, helm chart version, or binary version)
- If version is less than 1.13.1, upgrade to OpenFGA v1.13.1 or later
- Verify the upgrade was successful and the service is healthy
- If using authorization models with conditions and caching enabled, validate that different requests no longer produce identical cache keys
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-33729 — 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-2026-33729 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