[renovate]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Adoption	Passing	Confidence
github.com/google/cel-go	v0.28.0 → v0.29.0

---

cel-go: JSON Private Fields Exposed via NativeTypes and ParseStructTag

GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g

More information

Details

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 request type while a nested dependency type is silently registered too. If that nested type contains a json:"-" secret, CEL still receives a readable field named "-" even though the developer never registered or audited that nested type directly.

Reproduction

package main

import (
    "fmt"
    "reflect"

    "github.com/google/cel-go/cel"
    "github.com/google/cel-go/ext"
)

// Simulates a library type; developer never registers this directly.
type AuthCtx struct {
    UserID string `json:"userId"`
    Secret string `json:"-"` // server-internal; never appears in JSON output
}

// Developer registers only this type.
type Req struct{ Auth AuthCtx `json:"auth"` }

func main() {
    env, _ := cel.NewEnv(
        // Only Req is passed; AuthCtx is registered silently by newNativeTypes.
        ext.NativeTypes(reflect.TypeOf(Req{}), ext.ParseStructTag("json")),
        cel.Variable("req", cel.ObjectType("main.Req")),
    )
    ast, _ := env.Compile(`dyn(req.auth)["-"]`)
    prg, _ := env.Program(ast)
    out, _, _ := prg.Eval(map[string]any{
        "req": Req{Auth: AuthCtx{UserID: "alice", Secret: "sk-live-s3cr3t"}},
    })
    fmt.Println(out) // sk-live-s3cr3t
}

Expected: expression compile error or empty result; json:"-" field should not be
accessible.
Actual: sk-live-s3cr3t; the server-injected secret is returned verbatim.

The same field is also included under key "-" in ConvertToNative(jsonStructType)
output, and appears in FindStructFieldNames enumeration.

path 1. CEL indexing

Tested against the released module github.com/google/cel-go v0.28.1
(latest stable release as of 2026-05-12), using the go.mod entry:

require github.com/google/cel-go v0.28.1

Running the PoC above (go run main.go) produces:

sk-live-s3cr3t

The secret value is returned verbatim, with no error at compile time or at runtime.

Path 2. ConvertToNative(jsonStructType)

When the nativeObj for the AuthCtx value is converted to a Protobuf Struct
(the representation used whenever CEL output is serialised to JSON), the
json:"-" field appears in the output map under the key "-".

package main

import (
    "encoding/json"
    "fmt"
    "reflect"

    "github.com/google/cel-go/cel"
    "github.com/google/cel-go/ext"

    structpb "google.golang.org/protobuf/types/known/structpb"
)

type AuthCtxConv struct {
    UserID string `json:"userId"`
    Secret string `json:"-"` // should never appear in JSON output
}

type ReqConv struct{ Auth AuthCtxConv `json:"auth"` }

func main() {
    env, _ := cel.NewEnv(
        ext.NativeTypes(reflect.TypeOf(ReqConv{}), ext.ParseStructTag("json")),
        cel.Variable("req", cel.ObjectType("main.ReqConv")),
    )

    ast, _ := env.Compile(`req.auth`)
    prg, _ := env.Program(ast)
    out, _, _ := prg.Eval(map[string]any{
        "req": ReqConv{Auth: AuthCtxConv{UserID: "alice", Secret: "sk-live-s3cr3t"}},
    })

    jsonStructType := reflect.TypeOf(&structpb.Struct{})
    raw, _ := out.ConvertToNative(jsonStructType)

    st := raw.(*structpb.Struct)
    b, _ := json.MarshalIndent(st.AsMap(), "", "  ")
    fmt.Printf("ConvertToNative(jsonStructType) output:\n%s\n", b)
    fmt.Printf("\nDirect field access via \"-\" key present: %v\n", st.Fields["-"] != nil)
    if v, ok := st.Fields["-"]; ok {
        fmt.Printf("Value: %s\n", v.GetStringValue())
    }
}

Running the PoC above produces:

ConvertToNative(jsonStructType) output:
{
  "-": "sk-live-s3cr3t",
  "userId": "alice"
}

Direct field access via "-" key present: true
Value: sk-live-s3cr3t

The "-" key is present in the serialised Protobuf struct alongside userId.
Any system that converts a CEL evaluation result to JSON (e.g. via structpb.Struct) will include the secret in the output, regardless of whether the dyn()["-"] indexing path is used.

Impact

Any user who can submit CEL expressions to an application that uses ext.NativeTypes(ParseStructTag("json")) can read struct fields that the developer explicitly marked json:"-" to keep out of serialised output. By writing dyn(obj)["-"], the attacker retrieves the raw Go field value, typically a secret, internal token, or private identifier, with no compile-time or runtime error. Because newNativeTypes silently registers every nested struct reachable from the root type, the attacker may also reach secrets in dependency types the developer never intended to expose to CEL.

Remediation

Do not treat json:"-" as a CEL field named "-". Model it as an explicit skipped field, not as an empty string field name.

Update the struct-tag parsing path so exact json:"-" returns “skip this field”, while json:"-," continues to mean the literal field name "-", matching encoding/json semantics.

Apply that skip decision consistently anywhere native fields are exposed or resolved:

• duplicate-name validation in newNativeType
• field enumeration in FindStructFieldNames
• field type lookup in FindStructFieldType
• runtime lookup in fieldByName / hasField
• object construction in NewValue
• JSON conversion in ConvertToNative(jsonStructType)

Apply the same omit handling for xml:"-", yaml:"-", and bson:"-" where ParseStructTag is used.

Severity

• CVSS Score: 6.3 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/cel-expr/cel-go/security/advisories/GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-gcjh-h69q-9w9g

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

Release Notes

google/cel-go (github.com/google/cel-go)

v0.29.0

Compare Source

v0.28.1

Compare Source

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

• Branch creation
  • At any time (no schedule defined)
• Automerge
  • At any time (no schedule defined)

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

• Configuration used: Organization UI
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Enterprise
• Run ID: 714a672f-594b-406f-92f3-e52bb08f3a34

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between be22fc0 and 060f87c.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters: 3

• acceptance/go.sum is excluded by !**/*.sum
• go.sum is excluded by !**/*.sum
• tools/go.sum is excluded by !**/*.sum

📒 Files selected for processing: 3

• acceptance/go.mod
• go.mod
• tools/go.mod

Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 12 included reviews per hour; 11 remain after this review.

📝 Walkthrough

The pull request upgrades the indirect github.com/google/cel-go dependency from v0.28.0 to v0.29.0 in three Go modules.

Changes: CEL dependency upgrade

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Align CEL dependency versions go.mod, acceptance/go.mod, tools/go.mod	The indirect github.com/google/cel-go dependency changes from v0.28.0 to v0.29.0 in all three Go modules.

Priority: ➖ Normal

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes

Change: Bug fix

Suggested reviewers: simonbaird, robnester-rh

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 060f8

The dependency upgrade is consistent across the repository and introduces no identified merge-blocking risk.

Pre-merge checks: 5

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check		The title clearly identifies the dependency update to github.com/google/cel-go v0.29.0 and correctly highlights its security purpose.
Description check		The description explains the dependency update, its security rationale, advisory reference, release notes, and Renovate context. It does not use the template headings, but it provides the required Wha…
Docstring Coverage		No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0…
Linked Issues check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

Full details: Description check

Explanation

The description explains the dependency update, its security rationale, advisory reference, release notes, and Renovate context. It does not use the template headings, but it provides the required What and Why information and includes relevant issue links.

Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (3 skipped: 3 unsupported.)

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Commit to this branch
• Create a new PR

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[fullsend-ai-review]

Risk Assessment: moderate (2/5)

Details

Bot-authored security patch bumping cel-go across three Go modules; score 2 anchored from prior review, confirmed by independent computation (0.62x1.75 + 0.38x1.57 ~= 1.68 -> 2), with the only elevating signals being six dependency manifest files (Tier 1 dep score 5) and moderate multi-author contention in go.mod/go.sum history (3+ distinct authors in 90d).

Previous run

Risk Assessment: moderate (2/5)

Details

Mechanical bot-authored security patch bumping cel-go across three Go modules; elevated only by the number of dependency files changed and medium blast radius, offset by bot authorship and trivially small line count.

[fullsend-ai-review]

Looks good to me

Previous run

Looks good to me

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

Flag	Coverage Δ
acceptance	54.54% <ø> (ø)
generative	12.25% <ø> (ø)
integration	23.55% <ø> (ø)
unit	72.26% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Superseded by updated review