CVE-2024-43414

Apollo Federation is an architecture for declaratively composing APIs into a unified graph. Each team can own their slice of the graph independently, empowering them to deliver autonomously and incrementally. Instances of @apollo/query-planner >=2.0.0 and <2.8.5 are impacted by a denial-of-service vulnerability. @apollo/gateway versions >=2.0.0 and < 2.8.5 and Apollo Router <1.52.1 are also impacted through their use of @apollo/query-panner. If @apollo/query-planner is asked to plan a sufficiently complex query, it may loop infinitely and never complete. This results in unbounded memory consumption and either a crash or out-of-memory (OOM) termination. This issue can be triggered if you have at least one non-@key field that can be resolved by multiple subgraphs. To identify these shared fields, the schema for each subgraph must be reviewed. The mechanism to identify shared fields varies based on the version of Federation your subgraphs are using. You can check if your subgraphs are using Federation 1 or Federation 2 by reviewing their schemas. Federation 2 subgraph schemas will contain a @link directive referencing the version of Federation being used while Federation 1 subgraphs will not. For example, in a Federation 2 subgraph, you will find a line like @link(url: "https://specs.apollo.dev/federation/v2.0"). If a similar @link directive is not present in your subgraph schema, it is using Federation 1. Note that a supergraph can contain a mix of Federation 1 and Federation 2 subgraphs. This issue results from the Apollo query planner attempting to use a Number exceeding Javascript’s Number.MAX_VALUE in some cases. In Javascript, Number.MAX_VALUE is (2^1024 - 2^971). When the query planner receives an inbound graphql request, it breaks the query into pieces and for each piece, generates a list of potential execution steps to solve the piece. These candidates represent the steps that the query planner will take to satisfy the pieces of the larger query. As part of normal operations, the query planner requires and calculates the number of possible query plans for the total query. That is, it needs the product of the number of query plan candidates for each piece of the query. Under normal circumstances, after generating all query plan candidates and calculating the number of all permutations, the query planner moves on to stack rank candidates and prune less-than-optimal options. In particularly complex queries, especially those where fields can be solved through multiple subgraphs, this can cause the number of all query plan permutations to balloon. In worst-case scenarios, this can end up being a number larger than Number.MAX_VALUE. In Javascript, if Number.MAX_VALUE is exceeded, Javascript represents the value as “infinity”. If the count of candidates is evaluated as infinity, the component of the query planner responsible for pruning less-than-optimal query plans does not actually prune candidates, causing the query planner to evaluate many orders of magnitude more query plan candidates than necessary. This issue has been addressed in @apollo/query-planner v2.8.5, @apollo/gateway v2.8.5, and Apollo Router v1.52.1. Users are advised to upgrade. This issue can be avoided by ensuring there are no fields resolvable from multiple subgraphs. If all subgraphs are using Federation 2, you can confirm that you are not impacted by ensuring that none of your subgraph schemas use the @shareable directive. If you are using Federation 1 subgraphs, you will need to validate that there are no fields resolvable by multiple subgraphs.

Apollo Federation is an architecture for declaratively composing APIs into a unified graph. Each team can own their slice of the graph independently, empowering them to deliver autonomously and incrementally. Instances of @apollo/query-planner >=2.0.0 and <2.8.5 are impacted by a denial-of-service vulnerability. @apollo/gateway versions >=2.0.0 and < 2.8.5 and Apollo Router <1.52.1 are also impacted through their use of @apollo/query-panner. If @apollo/query-planner is asked to plan a sufficiently complex query, it may loop infinitely and never complete. This results in unbounded memory consumption and either a crash or out-of-memory (OOM) termination. This issue can be triggered if you have at least one non-@key field that can be resolved by multiple subgraphs. To identify these shared fields, the schema for each subgraph must be reviewed. The mechanism to identify shared fields varies based on the version of Federation your subgraphs are using. You can check if your subgraphs are using Federation 1 or Federation 2 by reviewing their schemas. Federation 2 subgraph schemas will contain a @link directive referencing the version of Federation being used while Federation 1 subgraphs will not. For example, in a Federation 2 subgraph, you will find a line like @link(url: "https://specs.apollo.dev/federation/v2.0"). If a similar @link directive is not present in your subgraph schema, it is using Federation 1. Note that a supergraph can contain a mix of Federation 1 and Federation 2 subgraphs. This issue results from the Apollo query planner attempting to use a Number exceeding Javascript’s Number.MAX_VALUE in some cases. In Javascript, Number.MAX_VALUE is (2^1024 - 2^971). When the query planner receives an inbound graphql request, it breaks the query into pieces and for each piece, generates a list of potential execution steps to solve the piece. These candidates represent the steps that the query planner will take to satisfy the pieces of the larger query. As part of normal operations, the query planner requires and calculates the number of possible query plans for the total query. That is, it needs the product of the number of query plan candidates for each piece of the query. Under normal circumstances, after generating all query plan candidates and calculating the number of all permutations, the query planner moves on to stack rank candidates and prune less-than-optimal options. In particularly complex queries, especially those where fields can be solved through multiple subgraphs, this can cause the number of all query plan permutations to balloon. In worst-case scenarios, this can end up being a number larger than Number.MAX_VALUE. In Javascript, if Number.MAX_VALUE is exceeded, Javascript represents the value as “infinity”. If the count of candidates is evaluated as infinity, the component of the query planner responsible for pruning less-than-optimal query plans does not actually prune candidates, causing the query planner to evaluate many orders of magnitude more query plan candidates than necessary. This issue has been addressed in @apollo/query-planner v2.8.5, @apollo/gateway v2.8.5, and Apollo Router v1.52.1. Users are advised to upgrade. This issue can be avoided by ensuring there are no fields resolvable from multiple subgraphs. If all subgraphs are using Federation 2, you can confirm that you are not impacted by ensuring that none of your subgraph schemas use the @shareable directive. If you are using Federation 1 subgraphs, you will need to validate that there are no fields resolvable by multiple subgraphs.

### Impact Instances of @apollo/query-planner >=2.0.0 and <2.8.5 are impacted by a denial-of-service vulnerability. @apollo/gateway versions >=2.0.0 and < 2.8.5 and Apollo Router <1.52.1 are also impacted through their use of @apollo/query-planner. If @apollo/query-planner is asked to plan a sufficiently complex query, it may loop infinitely and never complete. This results in unbounded memory consumption and either a crash or out-of-memory (OOM) termination. This issue can be triggered if you have at least one non-`@key` field that can be resolved by multiple subgraphs. To identify these shared fields, the schema for each subgraph must be reviewed. The mechanism to identify shared fields varies based on the version of Federation your subgraphs are using. You can check if your subgraphs are using Federation 1 or Federation 2 by reviewing their schemas. Federation 2 subgraph schemas will contain a `@link` directive referencing the version of Federation being used while Federation 1 subgraphs will not. For example, in a Federation 2 subgraph, you will find a line like `@link(url: "https://specs.apollo.dev/federation/v2.0")`. If a similar `@link` directive is not present in your subgraph schema, it is using Federation 1. Note that a supergraph can contain a mix of Federation 1 and Federation 2 subgraphs. **To review Federation 1 subgraphs for impact:** In Federation 1 subgraphs, fields are implicitly shareable across subgraphs. To review for impact, you will need to review for cases where multiple subgraphs can resolve the same field. For example: ```graphql # Subgraph 1 type Query { field: Int } # Subgraph 2 type Query { field: Int } ``` **To review Federation 2 subgraphs for impact:** In Federation 2 subgraphs, fields must be explicitly defined as shareable across subgraphs. This is done via the `@shareable` directive. For example: ```graphql # Subgraph 1 @link(url: "https://specs.apollo.dev/federation/v2.0") type Query { field: Int @shareable } # Subgraph 2 @link(url: "https://specs.apollo.dev/federation/v2.0") type Query { field: Int @shareable } ``` ### Impact Detail This issue results from the Apollo query planner attempting to use a `Number` exceeding Javascript’s `Number.MAX_VALUE` in some cases. In Javascript, `Number.MAX_VALUE` is (2^1024 - 2^971). When the query planner receives an inbound graphql request, it breaks the query into pieces and for each piece, generates a list of potential execution steps to solve the piece. These candidates represent the steps that the query planner will take to satisfy the pieces of the larger query. As part of normal operations, the query planner requires and calculates the number of possible query plans for the total query. That is, it needs the product of the number of query plan candidates for each piece of the query. Under normal circumstances, after generating all query plan candidates and calculating the number of all permutations, the query planner moves on to stack rank candidates and prune less-than-optimal options. In particularly complex queries, especially those where fields can be solved through multiple subgraphs, this can cause the number of all query plan permutations to balloon. In worst-case scenarios, this can end up being a number larger than `Number.MAX_VALUE`. In Javascript, if `Number.MAX_VALUE` is exceeded, Javascript represents the value as “infinity”. If the count of candidates is evaluated as infinity, the component of the query planner responsible for pruning less-than-optimal query plans does not actually prune candidates, causing the query planner to evaluate many orders of magnitude more query plan candidates than necessary. A given graph’s exposure to this issue varies based on its complexity. Consider the following Federation 2 subgraphs: ```graphql # Subgraph 1 type Query { field: Int @shareable } # Subgraph 2 type Query { field: Int @shareable } ``` The query planner can solve requests for `Query.field` in one of two ways - either by querying subgraph 1 or subgraph 2. The following query with 1024 aliased fields would trigger this issue because 2^1024 > `Number.MAX_VALUE`: ```graphql query { field_1: field field_2: field # ... field_1023: field field_1024: field } ``` However, in a graph that provided 5 options to solve a given field, the bug could be encountered in a query that aliased the field approximately 440 times. ### Patches @apollo/query-planner 2.8.5 @apollo/gateway 2.8.5 Apollo Router 1.52.1 ### Workarounds This issue can be avoided by ensuring there are no fields resolvable from multiple subgraphs. If all subgraphs are using Federation 2, you can confirm that you are not impacted by ensuring that none of your subgraph schemas use the `@shareable` directive. If you are using Federation 1 subgraphs, you will need to validate that there are no fields resolvable by multiple subgraphs. Note that a supergraph can contain a mix of Federation 1 and Federation 2 subgraphs. If you do have fields resolvable by multiple subgraphs, changing this behavior in response to this issue may be risky to the operation of your supergraph. We recommend that you update to a patched version of either Apollo Router or Apollo Gateway. Apollo customers with an enterprise entitlement using the Apollo Router can also mitigate much of the risk from this issue by implementing [Apollo’s Persisted Queries (PQ) feature](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/router/configuration/persisted-queries). With PQ enabled, the Apollo Router will only execute safelisted queries. While customers would need to ensure that queries that induce this issue are not added to the safelist, PQs would mitigate the risk of clients submitting ad hoc queries that exploit this issue. ### References [Additional information on Query Plans](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/federation/query-plans/)

### Impact Instances of @apollo/query-planner >=2.0.0 and <2.8.5 are impacted by a denial-of-service vulnerability. @apollo/gateway versions >=2.0.0 and < 2.8.5 and Apollo Router <1.52.1 are also impacted through their use of @apollo/query-planner. If @apollo/query-planner is asked to plan a sufficiently complex query, it may loop infinitely and never complete. This results in unbounded memory consumption and either a crash or out-of-memory (OOM) termination. This issue can be triggered if you have at least one non-`@key` field that can be resolved by multiple subgraphs. To identify these shared fields, the schema for each subgraph must be reviewed. The mechanism to identify shared fields varies based on the version of Federation your subgraphs are using. You can check if your subgraphs are using Federation 1 or Federation 2 by reviewing their schemas. Federation 2 subgraph schemas will contain a `@link` directive referencing the version of Federation being used while Federation 1 subgraphs will not. For example, in a Federation 2 subgraph, you will find a line like `@link(url: "https://specs.apollo.dev/federation/v2.0")`. If a similar `@link` directive is not present in your subgraph schema, it is using Federation 1. Note that a supergraph can contain a mix of Federation 1 and Federation 2 subgraphs. **To review Federation 1 subgraphs for impact:** In Federation 1 subgraphs, fields are implicitly shareable across subgraphs. To review for impact, you will need to review for cases where multiple subgraphs can resolve the same field. For example: ```graphql # Subgraph 1 type Query { field: Int } # Subgraph 2 type Query { field: Int } ``` **To review Federation 2 subgraphs for impact:** In Federation 2 subgraphs, fields must be explicitly defined as shareable across subgraphs. This is done via the `@shareable` directive. For example: ```graphql # Subgraph 1 @link(url: "https://specs.apollo.dev/federation/v2.0") type Query { field: Int @shareable } # Subgraph 2 @link(url: "https://specs.apollo.dev/federation/v2.0") type Query { field: Int @shareable } ``` ### Impact Detail This issue results from the Apollo query planner attempting to use a `Number` exceeding Javascript’s `Number.MAX_VALUE` in some cases. In Javascript, `Number.MAX_VALUE` is (2^1024 - 2^971). When the query planner receives an inbound graphql request, it breaks the query into pieces and for each piece, generates a list of potential execution steps to solve the piece. These candidates represent the steps that the query planner will take to satisfy the pieces of the larger query. As part of normal operations, the query planner requires and calculates the number of possible query plans for the total query. That is, it needs the product of the number of query plan candidates for each piece of the query. Under normal circumstances, after generating all query plan candidates and calculating the number of all permutations, the query planner moves on to stack rank candidates and prune less-than-optimal options. In particularly complex queries, especially those where fields can be solved through multiple subgraphs, this can cause the number of all query plan permutations to balloon. In worst-case scenarios, this can end up being a number larger than `Number.MAX_VALUE`. In Javascript, if `Number.MAX_VALUE` is exceeded, Javascript represents the value as “infinity”. If the count of candidates is evaluated as infinity, the component of the query planner responsible for pruning less-than-optimal query plans does not actually prune candidates, causing the query planner to evaluate many orders of magnitude more query plan candidates than necessary. A given graph’s exposure to this issue varies based on its complexity. Consider the following Federation 2 subgraphs: ```graphql # Subgraph 1 type Query { field: Int @shareable } # Subgraph 2 type Query { field: Int @shareable } ``` The query planner can solve requests for `Query.field` in one of two ways - either by querying subgraph 1 or subgraph 2. The following query with 1024 aliased fields would trigger this issue because 2^1024 > `Number.MAX_VALUE`: ```graphql query { field_1: field field_2: field # ... field_1023: field field_1024: field } ``` However, in a graph that provided 5 options to solve a given field, the bug could be encountered in a query that aliased the field approximately 440 times. ### Patches @apollo/query-planner 2.8.5 @apollo/gateway 2.8.5 Apollo Router 1.52.1 ### Workarounds This issue can be avoided by ensuring there are no fields resolvable from multiple subgraphs. If all subgraphs are using Federation 2, you can confirm that you are not impacted by ensuring that none of your subgraph schemas use the `@shareable` directive. If you are using Federation 1 subgraphs, you will need to validate that there are no fields resolvable by multiple subgraphs. Note that a supergraph can contain a mix of Federation 1 and Federation 2 subgraphs. If you do have fields resolvable by multiple subgraphs, changing this behavior in response to this issue may be risky to the operation of your supergraph. We recommend that you update to a patched version of either Apollo Router or Apollo Gateway. Apollo customers with an enterprise entitlement using the Apollo Router can also mitigate much of the risk from this issue by implementing [Apollo’s Persisted Queries (PQ) feature](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/router/configuration/persisted-queries). With PQ enabled, the Apollo Router will only execute safelisted queries. While customers would need to ensure that queries that induce this issue are not added to the safelist, PQs would mitigate the risk of clients submitting ad hoc queries that exploit this issue. ### References [Additional information on Query Plans](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/federation/query-plans/)

Apollo Federation es una arquitectura para componer API de forma declarativa en un gráfico unificado. Cada equipo puede ser dueño de su porción del gráfico de forma independiente, lo que les permite realizar entregas de forma autónoma e incremental. Las instancias de @apollo/query-planner &gt;=2.0.0 y &lt;2.8.5 se ven afectadas por una vulnerabilidad de denegación de servicio. Las versiones de @apollo/gateway &gt;=2.0.0 y &lt;2.8.5 y Apollo Router &lt;1.52.1 también se ven afectadas por el uso de @apollo/query-panner. Si se le pide a @apollo/query-planner que planifique una consulta suficientemente compleja, es posible que se repita infinitamente y nunca se complete. Esto da como resultado un consumo de memoria ilimitado y una falla o terminación por falta de memoria (OOM). Este problema puede desencadenarse si tiene al menos un campo que no sea @key y que pueda resolverse mediante varios subgrafos. Para identificar estos campos compartidos, se debe revisar el esquema de cada subgrafo. El mecanismo para identificar campos compartidos varía según la versión de Federación que estén utilizando sus subgrafos. Puede comprobar si sus subgrafos utilizan la Federación 1 o la Federación 2 revisando sus esquemas. Los esquemas de subgrafos de Federación 2 contendrán una directiva @link que hace referencia a la versión de Federación que se utiliza, mientras que los subgrafos de Federación 1 no. Por ejemplo, en un subgrafo de Federación 2, encontrará una línea como @link(url: "https://specs.apollo.dev/federation/v2.0"). Si una directiva @link similar no está presente en su esquema de subgrafo, está utilizando la Federación 1. Tenga en cuenta que un supergrafo puede contener una combinación de subgrafos de Federación 1 y Federación 2. Este problema se debe a que el planificador de consultas de Apollo intenta utilizar un número que excede el número de Javascript.MAX_VALUE en algunos casos. En Javascript, Number.MAX_VALUE es (2^1024 - 2^971). Cuando el planificador de consultas recibe una solicitud Graphql entrante, divide la consulta en partes y, para cada parte, genera una lista de posibles pasos de ejecución para resolver la parte. Estos candidatos representan los pasos que seguirá el planificador de consultas para satisfacer las partes de la consulta más grande. Como parte de las operaciones normales, el planificador de consultas requiere y calcula la cantidad de planes de consulta posibles para la consulta total. Es decir, necesita el producto del número de candidatos al plan de consulta para cada parte de la consulta. En circunstancias normales, después de generar todos los candidatos al plan de consulta y calcular el número de todas las permutaciones, el planificador de consultas pasa a clasificar los candidatos y eliminar las opciones menos óptimas. En consultas particularmente complejas, especialmente aquellas donde los campos se pueden resolver a través de múltiples subgrafos, esto puede hacer que el número de todas las permutaciones del plan de consulta aumente. En el peor de los casos, esto puede terminar siendo un número mayor que Number.MAX_VALUE. En Javascript, si se excede Number.MAX_VALUE, Javascript representa el valor como "infinito". Si el recuento de candidatos se evalúa como infinito, el componente del planificador de consultas responsable de eliminar los planes de consultas que no son óptimos en realidad no elimina los candidatos, lo que hace que el planificador de consultas evalúe muchos órdenes de magnitud más candidatos a planes de consultas de los necesarios. Este problema se solucionó en @apollo/query-planner v2.8.5, @apollo/gateway v2.8.5 y Apollo Router v1.52.1. Se recomienda a los usuarios que actualicen. Este problema se puede evitar asegurándose de que no haya campos que se puedan resolver en varios subgrafos. Si todos los subgrafos utilizan la Federación 2, puede confirmar que no se verá afectado asegurándose de que ninguno de sus esquemas de subgrafos utilice la directiva @shareable. --- TRUNCADO ----