Summary
A Comprehensive Example
If you have a schema with a structure like this:
definition special_user {}
definition user {
relation special_user_mapping: special_user
permission special_user = special_user_mapping
}
definition group {
relation member: user
permission membership = member + member->special_user
}
definition system {
relation viewer: user | group#membership
// This is the problematic permission
permission view = viewer + viewer->special_user
}
And these relationships:
system:somesystem#viewer@group:somegroup#membership
group:somegroup#member@user:someuser1
user:someuser1#special_user_mapping@special_user:specialuser
And you call LookupResources with:
subject_type: user
subject_id: someuser1
permission: view
resource_type: system
You would expect to receive system:somesystem in the results, but you do not.
Note that this only applies to LookupResources; if you CheckPermission for that resource specifically, it will return HasPermission.
Workarounds
N/A
References
N/A
Impact
If your schema includes the following characteristics:
- You have a permission defined in terms of a union (
+) - That union references the same relation on both sides, but one side arrows to a different permission
Then you might have missing LookupResources results when checking the permission. This only affects LookupResources; other APIs calculate permissionship correctly.
A small concrete example:
relation doer_of_things: user | group#member
permission do_the_thing = doer_of_things + doer_of_things->admin
A CheckPermission on do_the_thing will return the correct permissionship, but a LookupResources on do_the_thing may miss resources.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Remediation advice
The issue is fixed in v1.47.1. Upgrading to this version will remediate this issue.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2025-65111? CVE-2025-65111 is a low-severity security vulnerability in github.com/authzed/spicedb (go), affecting versions < 1.47.1. It is fixed in 1.47.1.
- Which versions of github.com/authzed/spicedb are affected by CVE-2025-65111? github.com/authzed/spicedb (go) versions < 1.47.1 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2025-65111? Yes. CVE-2025-65111 is fixed in 1.47.1. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2025-65111 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-65111 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2025-65111 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2025-65111? Upgrade
github.com/authzed/spicedbto 1.47.1 or later.