CVE-2026-55773
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 · uneditedCedarJava 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 Cedar-expression injection via unescaped toCedarExpr(). The toCedarExpr() method on Cedar Value types does not escape special characters (" or \) when converting values to Cedar source code. If an integrator uses toCedarExpr() to build policy text at runtime from user-controlled values, an actor could inject arbitrary Cedar expressions. For example, injecting || true into a permit ... when { ... } clause could make the permit unconditional, or injecting && false into a forbid clause could prevent the forbid from triggering. This issue requires the integrator to use toCedarExpr() to build policy text at runtime from user-controlled input. This vulnerability has been fixed in versions 2.3.6, 3.4.1, and 4.9.0.
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 confidenceCedarJava's toCedarExpr() method fails to escape special characters (backslash and double-quote) when converting Cedar Value types to policy source code. An attacker controlling input to this method can inject arbitrary Cedar expressions like || true or && false into permit/forbid policy clauses, bypassing authorization logic.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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.
-
Identify CedarJava version in your projectInspect your dependency management file (pom.xml for Maven, build.gradle for Gradle) for the CedarJava dependency and note its version. Alternatively, locate the cedarjava-*.jar file in your lib or dependencies folder and check its version in the filename or manifest.Affected if The version is below 2.3.6, below 3.4.1, or below 4.9.0 (e.g., any 2.x version below 2.3.6, any 3.x version below 3.4.1, or any 4.x version below 4.9.0)
-
Search for toCedarExpr() method calls in source codePerform a text search across your codebase for the string 'toCedarExpr(' to identify all locations where this method is invoked.Affected if The method is called anywhere in your codebase
-
Determine if user input flows into toCedarExpr() callsFor each found call to toCedarExpr(), trace backward through the code to determine whether any parameter passed to this method originates from user-supplied data such as HTTP request parameters, API inputs, or database fields that could contain untrusted content.Affected if User-controlled or untrusted data is passed as an argument to toCedarExpr() without prior sanitization or escaping
-
Verify if constructed policy text is evaluated by CedarIdentify whether the output of toCedarExpr() is subsequently used to create or update Cedar policies (for example, passed to PolicySet or Policy constructors, or sent to a Cedar authorization engine).Affected if The output of toCedarExpr() is fed directly into Cedar policy evaluation without additional validation
You are affected if your project uses a CedarJava version prior to 2.3.6/3.4.1/4.9.0 AND your code passes user-supplied input to toCedarExpr() to build policies that Cedar then evaluates.
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 · scopedUpgrade CedarJava to version 2.3.6, 3.4.1, or 4.9.0 (depending on the release branch in use) and audit all code paths using toCedarExpr() to ensure user input is properly validated before policy construction.
Upgrade to CedarJava 2.3.6 (for 2.x users), 3.4.1 (for 3.x users), or 4.9.0 (for 4.x users)
- Identify the current CedarJava version in use by checking project dependencies (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or similar)
- If using version 2.x (2.0.0 - 2.3.5), upgrade to version 2.3.6
- If using version 3.x (3.0.0 - 3.4.0), upgrade to version 3.4.1
- If using version 4.x (4.0.0 - 4.8.x), upgrade to version 4.9.0
- Update the dependency version in your build configuration file
- Rebuild and test the application to ensure the upgrade does not introduce issues
- Verify that the toCedarExpr() method now properly escapes special characters (" and \)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $4,640.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-55773 — 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-2026-55773 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