Skip to main content

hulumi/policies CVE-2026-82856

| EUVDEUVD-2026-68444 CRITICAL
Improper Access Control (CWE-284)
2026-08-31 VulnCheck GHSA-24pm-8839-wg8f
9.3
CVSS 4.0 · Vendor: VulnCheck
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Access
    Author IAM trust policy with ForAnyValue:StringLike wildcard sub
  2. Delivery
    Submit to CI/IaC using hulumi/policies < 1.3.2
  3. Exploit
    Guardrail fails to parse set-qualified operator
  4. Execution
    Overbroad OIDC trust merged
  5. Persist
    Unintended GitHub workflow assumes AWS role
  6. Impact
    Access AWS resources

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
ASVS 5.0
V8 - Authorization Access control enforcement
MITRE ATT&CK

1 technique across 1 tactic: Defense Evasion

The technique list with ATT&CK links and the kill-chain view is part of the Basic plan and up.

Exploitation Conditions

Exploitation requires that @hulumi/policies (version < 1.3.2) is actually used to inspect AWS IAM GitHub OIDC trust policies, and that an attacker can introduce or influence a trust policy that expresses the GitHub Actions OIDC 'sub' condition using a set-qualified operator such as ForAnyValue:StringLike (or ForAllValues:) with a wildcard value. The condition that triggers the flaw is specifically the use of set-qualified StringLike/StringEquals operators, which the pre-1.3.2 inspector did not evaluate. Limiting factors: the library must be the (or a) enforcement point; the malicious/overbroad policy must be accepted into the environment; and independent AWS-side controls or manual review, if present, can catch the wildcard even when this library does not. The flaw does not directly compromise the library host - impact is realized in AWS.

Impact

The signals are mixed and should be read carefully. The CVSS 4.0 vector (AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H) rates this Critical (9.3), but that vector describes worst-case downstream AWS compromise rather than a direct network exploit of the library itself - the library is a static/CI-time inspector, so 'attack' means slipping a crafted IAM trust policy past it, after which the actual privilege gain occurs in AWS. There is no EPSS score provided, no CISA KEV listing, and no public proof-of-concept identified, so this is not evidence of active or widespread exploitation; it is a serious latent misconfiguration-detection gap. Real-world priority depends heavily on how the library is used: teams that rely on @hulumi/policies as their sole guardrail for GitHub-OIDC-to-AWS trust policies should treat it as urgent, because a bypassed check can silently authorize any GitHub repository/branch to assume a role, whereas teams with layered controls (manual review, AWS-side condition enforcement, IAM Access Analyzer) face lower effective risk. Net: high-impact-if-relevant but exploitation is gated on the specific deployment, so it is a fix-promptly issue for users of this package rather than an internet-wide emergency.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An engineer (or a malicious contributor) submits an infrastructure-as-code change adding an AWS role whose GitHub OIDC trust policy uses ForAnyValue:StringLike to set the 'sub' claim to a wildcard; the pre-merge @hulumi/policies guardrail (pre-1.3.2) fails to recognize the set-qualified operator and approves it. Once merged, workflows from unintended repositories or branches can assume that AWS role via OIDC. No public exploit code is identified at time of analysis; exploitation requires the crafted policy to be introduced into a pipeline that trusts this library as its guardrail.

Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Why: CRITICAL severity.
Patch available 0.3% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAI

Security-guardrail bypass in the @hulumi/policies npm library (versions before 1.3.2) allows dangerous AWS IAM configurations to pass automated policy inspection. The G_OIDC_1 trust-policy inspector only matched exact StringLike/StringEquals condition operators, so set-qualified operators like ForAnyValue:StringLike could smuggle wildcard GitHub Actions OIDC 'sub' conditions past the mandatory check, letting an overly permissive AWS role assumption go undetected. Reported by VulnCheck; no public exploit is identified at time of analysis, and it is not on CISA KEV. The CVSS 4.0 score is 9.3 (Critical).

RemediationAI

Vendor-released patch: upgrade @hulumi/policies to 1.3.2 or later, in which the AWS trust-policy inspector now evaluates set-qualified string operators (ForAnyValue:/ForAllValues:) and rejects unsafe GitHub OIDC 'sub' conditions; pin or bump the dependency in package.json/lockfiles and re-run policy checks across existing IaC. As a compensating control until you upgrade, audit existing AWS role trust policies for GitHub OIDC and reject or tighten any token.actions.githubusercontent.com:sub condition that uses a wildcard (repo:ORG/*:* or similar) or a set-qualified operator, and enforce that check on the AWS side (e.g., IAM Access Analyzer custom policy checks or a CI gate) so detection does not depend solely on the vulnerable library - the trade-off is added review overhead and potential false positives on legitimately broad-but-intended subjects. Refer to GHSA-q2f7-m237-v562 and the VulnCheck advisory for the exact affected/fixed versions.

Affected VersionsENISA

policies 0 <1.3.2

Affected Packages

npm @hulumi/policies fix: 1.3.2
euvd policies fix: 1.3.2

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 2 packages in npm, euvd

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

The affected component is a policy-as-code inspection library (npm/@hulumi/policies) used to validate AWS IAM trust policies - specifically GitHub OIDC federation trust relationships that let GitHub Actions workflows assume AWS roles via web-identity federation. AWS IAM condition operators can be qualified with set operators (ForAllValues:, ForAnyValue:) to evaluate multi-valued condition keys. The library's guardrail G_OIDC_1 enforced that the token subject (token.actions.githubusercontent.com:sub) not be a wildcard, but it only inspected the bare operator keys (StringLike/StringEquals). A trust policy expressing the same wildcard via ForAnyValue:StringLike was not parsed as the same operator class, so the unsafe condition was invisible to the check. This maps to CWE-284 (Improper Access Control): the root cause is an incomplete allow/deny evaluation of a security-relevant input, not a memory-safety or injection flaw.

Know when Hulumi gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (VulnCheck) PRIMARY 9.3 CRITICAL
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
vuln.today AI 10.0 CRITICAL

Scope change (S:C) because the vulnerable inspector differs from the impacted AWS resources; PR:N as crafting the policy needs no library credentials, though exploitation depends on the policy being accepted; worst-case role assumption yields high C/I/A.

3.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
4.0 AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

Primary rating from Vendor (VulnCheck).

CVSS VectorVendor: VulnCheck

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Attack Requirements
None
Privileges Required
None
User Interaction
None
Vulnerable system: Confidentiality
High
Vulnerable system: Integrity
High
Vulnerable system: Availability
High
Subsequent system: Confidentiality
None
Subsequent system: Integrity
None
Subsequent system: Availability
None

Lifecycle Timeline

2
CVE Published
Aug 31, 2026 - 10:50 cve.org
CRITICAL 9.3
Patch available
Aug 31, 2026 - 10:16 EUVD

DescriptionCVE.org

@hulumi/policies versions before 1.3.2 fail to properly validate set-qualified AWS IAM condition operators in GitHub OIDC trust policies. Attackers can use ForAnyValue:StringLike operators to hide wildcard GitHub Actions OIDC subject conditions from security guardrails.

Technical POC Analysis

This is CWE-284, Improper Access Control.

Full technical POC analysis - root cause, step-by-step exploitation and patch breakdown - is part of the Pro and Business plans.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.3%
Top 79% exploitable
Prevalence
Low
niche npm policy-as-code library, limited and specialized adoption
Social Media
2
Sightings
Data Quality
6 sources
Confidence: High

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity CRITICAL
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.3%
Patch available Yes
Active threat No
Deciding rule
CRITICAL severity
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision· derived
Scheduled
Exploitation
None
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable
Yes
Human Impact· derived
Medium
Technical Impact
Total

Priority Score

46
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +46
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

Authentication bypass attacks exploit flaws in the verification mechanisms that control access to systems and applications.

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy