Capgo (Cap-go/capgo.app) server backend Supabase functions contain an incorrect authorization flaw in the API-key bundle promotion path. The PUT /bundle endpoint, available to all and write API keys, dispatches to setChannel, which authorizes with checkPermission(c, channel.promote_bundle, { appId: body.app_id }) and omits the requests channel_id. Because the omitted scope field is passed to rbac_check_permission_direct as SQL NULL, and channel-scope override evaluation is gated on p_channel_id IS NOT NULL, per-channel allow/deny overrides are never evaluated. A principal holding app-level channel.promote_bundle (granted by default to the app_developer and app_uploader roles) can therefore promote a bundle to a channel for which an explicit per-channel deny override exists, updating public.channels.version for the supplied channel_id; the target channel is only validated after authorization. The issue is confirmed on main at commit de66fa51e7ff2f50283cc1455c3d80ab3eb0ae43 and likely earlier versions; no patched version is known at the time of publication.
Weakness
The system’s authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user’s data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Extended Description
Retrieval of a user record occurs in the system based on some key value that is under user control. The key would typically identify a user-related record stored in the system and would be used to lookup that record for presentation to the user. It is likely that an attacker would have to be an authenticated user in the system. However, the authorization process would not properly check the data access operation to ensure that the authenticated user performing the operation has sufficient entitlements to perform the requested data access, hence bypassing any other authorization checks present in the system. For example, attackers can look at places where user specific data is retrieved (e.g. search screens) and determine whether the key for the item being looked up is controllable externally. The key may be a hidden field in the HTML form field, might be passed as a URL parameter or as an unencrypted cookie variable, then in each of these cases it will be possible to tamper with the key value. One manifestation of this weakness is when a system uses sequential or otherwise easily-guessable session IDs that would allow one user to easily switch to another user’s session and read/modify their data.