GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g cel-go: JSON Private Fields Exposed via NativeTypes and ParseStructTag

Not scored Published

The cel-go library exposes private struct fields tagged with json:"-" to user-submitted expressions, allowing unauthorized data disclosure.

Exploited in the wild
Not known
Login needed
Not needed
Attackable
Over the internet
Victim action needed
Not needed
Fix
Available

What is GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g?

GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g is a vulnerability in github.com/google/cel-go, published on 24 Jul 2026. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim.

Official description

The function ext.NativeTypes(ParseStructTag("json")) does not honour the encoding/json skip directive json:"-". Fields tagged json:"-" are registered in the CEL type system under the literal name "-" and are readable from any user-submitted CEL expression via dyn(obj)["-"].

Additionally, newNativeTypes silently registers every nested struct reachable from the type passed to NativeTypes, including types from third-party dependencies the developer never examined.

Root cause

In fieldNameByTag, the helper used by ParseStructTag("json") to translate Go struct tags into CEL field names.

See at ext/native.go:146:

func fieldNameByTag(structTagToParse string) func(field reflect.StructField) string {
    return func(field reflect.StructField) string {
        tag, found := field.Tag.Lookup(structTagToParse)
        if found {
            splits := strings.Split(tag, ",")
            if len(splits) > 0 {
                // We make the assumption that the leftmost entry in the tag is the name.
                // This seems to be true for most tags that have the concept of a name/key, such as:
                // https://pkg.go.dev/encoding/xml#Marshal
                // https://pkg.go.dev/encoding/json#Marshal
                // https://pkg.go.dev/go.mongodb.org/mongo-driver/bson#hdr-Structs
                // https://pkg.go.dev/go.yaml.in/yaml/v3#Marshal
                name := splits[0]
                return name
            }
        }

        return field.Name
    }
}

For a field tagged json:"-", this code splits the tag into []string{"-"} and returns "-" as the CEL field name. It never checks whether "-" is the JSON skip sentinel.

This contradicts the encoding/json rule that the source comment explicitly points readers to:

As a special case, if the field tag is "-", the field is always omitted. Note
that a field with name "-" can still be generated using the tag "-,".

The public option also documents JSON-style parsing as the intended behavior. See at ext/native.go:190:

// ParseStructTag configures the struct tag to parse. The 0th item in the tag is used as the name of the CEL field.
// For example:
// If the tag to parse is "cel" and the struct field has tag cel:"foo", the CEL struct field will be "foo".
// If the tag to parse is "json" and the struct field has tag json:"foo,omitempty", the CEL struct field will be "foo".
func ParseStructTag(tag string) NativeTypesOption {
    return func(ntp *nativeTypeOptions) error {
        ntp.fieldNameHandler = fieldNameByTag(tag)
        return nil
    }
}

A developer using ParseStructTag("json") is therefore led to expect encoding/json field-name semantics. Instead, json:"-" is treated as a real field name.

The bad name is accepted during native type construction. newNativeType checks for duplicate field names, but it does not reject or skip empty names or skip sentinels.

See at ext/native.go:663:

if fieldNameHandler != nil {
    fieldNames := make(map[string]struct{})

    for idx := 0; idx < refType.NumField(); idx++ {
        field := refType.Field(idx)
        fieldName := toFieldName(fieldNameHandler, field)

        if _, found := fieldNames[fieldName]; found {
            return nil, fmt.Errorf("invalid field name `%s` in struct `%s`: %w", fieldName, refType.Name(), errDuplicatedFieldName)
        } else {
            fieldNames[fieldName] = struct{}{}
        }
    }
}

Once accepted, the field becomes part of CEL's view of the type. Field enumeration reports it as a normal field name.

See at ext/native.go:286:

func (tp *nativeTypeProvider) FindStructFieldNames(typeName string) ([]string, bool) {
    if t, found := tp.nativeTypes[typeName]; found {
        fieldCount := t.refType.NumField()
        fields := make([]string, fieldCount)
        for i := 0; i < fieldCount; i++ {
            fields[i] = toFieldName(tp.options.fieldNameHandler, t.refType.Field(i))
        }
        return fields, true
    }
    if celTypeFields, found := tp.baseProvider.FindStructFieldNames(typeName); found {
        return celTypeFields, true
    }
    return tp.baseProvider.FindStructFieldNames(typeName)
}

Field lookup also treats the name as valid and returns the underlying Go field value.

See at ext/native.go:303:

func (tp *nativeTypeProvider) FindStructFieldType(typeName, fieldName string) (*types.FieldType, bool) {
    t, found := tp.nativeTypes[typeName]
    if !found {
        return tp.baseProvider.FindStructFieldType(typeName, fieldName)
    }
    refField, isDefined := t.hasField(fieldName)
    if !found || !isDefined {
        return nil, false
    }

    return &types.FieldType{
        IsSet: func(obj any) bool {
            refVal := reflect.Indirect(reflect.ValueOf(obj))
            refField := refVal.FieldByName(refField.Name)
            return !refField.IsZero()
        },
        GetFrom: func(obj any) (any, error) {
            refVal := reflect.Indirect(reflect.ValueOf(obj))
            refField := refVal.FieldByName(refField.Name)
            return getFieldValue(refField), nil
        },
    }, true
}

At runtime, native objects advertise index access. See at ext/native.go:37:

var (
    nativeObjTraitMask = traits.FieldTesterType | traits.IndexerType
)

Because traits.IndexerType is present, a user expression can bypass ordinary field syntax and read the registered "-" field with bracket access:

dyn(req.auth)["-"]

The same mistaken name is also used when converting native objects to JSON-like CEL values. ConvertToNative(jsonStructType) iterates all Go struct fields, computes the CEL field name, and inserts it into the output map without applying the JSON skip rule.

See at ext/native.go:501:

case jsonStructType:
    refVal := reflect.Indirect(o.refValue)
    refType := refVal.Type()
    fields := make(map[string]*structpb.Value, refVal.NumField())
    for i := 0; i < refVal.NumField(); i++ {
        fieldType := refType.Field(i)
        fieldValue := refVal.Field(i)
        if !fieldValue.IsValid() || fieldValue.IsZero() {
            continue
        }
        fieldName := toFieldName(o.valType.fieldNameHandler, fieldType)
        fieldCELVal := o.NativeToValue(fieldValue.Interface())
        fieldJSONVal, err := fieldCELVal.ConvertToNative(jsonValueType)
        if err != nil {
            return nil, err
        }
        fields[fieldName] = fieldJSONVal.(*structpb.Value)
    }
    return &structpb.Struct{Fields: fields}, nil

This means a json:"-" secret is exposed in two ways: it can be read directly through CEL indexing as dyn(obj)["-"], and it can appear under the key "-" in JSON struct conversion output.

The blast radius is widened by newNativeTypes, which registers not only the type explicitly passed to NativeTypes, but also every nested struct reachable from its fields.

See at ext/native.go:609:

func newNativeTypes(fieldNameHandler NativeTypesFieldNameHandler, rawType reflect.Type) ([]*nativeType, error) {
    nt, err := newNativeType(fieldNameHandler, rawType)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }
    result := []*nativeType{nt}

    var iterateStructMembers func(reflect.Type)
    iterateStructMembers = func(t reflect.Type) {
        if k := t.Kind(); k == reflect.Pointer || k == reflect.Slice || k == reflect.Array || k == reflect.Map {
            iterateStructMembers(t.Elem())
            return
        }
        if t.Kind() != reflect.Struct {
            return
        }

        nt, ntErr := newNativeType(fieldNameHandler, t)
        if ntErr != nil {
            err = ntErr
            return
        }
        result = append(result, nt)

        for idx := 0; idx < t.NumField(); idx++ {
            iterateStructMembers(t.Field(idx).Type)
        }
    }
    iterateStructMembers(rawType)

    return result, err
}

As a result, a developer can register one apparently safe req

Which versions are affected by GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g?

3 open source packages ship an affected version, including github.com/google/cel-go.

PackageAffectedFixed in
github.com/google/cel-go GoFrom 0.22.00.29.0
github.com/google/cel-go GoFrom 0.22.00.29.0
github.com/google/cel-go GoFrom 0.22.00.30.0

How do I fix GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g?

Upgrade github.com/google/cel-go to a fixed version for your release line: 0.29.0 or 0.30.0.

Is GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g being exploited?

There is no known exploitation of GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g in the wild and no public exploit code.

Sources

Also known as GO-2026-6094.

Is GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g in your software?

Upload an SBOM and sbomify checks it against every vulnerability here, every day.

Check your SBOMs for free