GHSA-mx7m-j9xf-62hw is a high-severity (CVSS 7.5) CWE-288 vulnerability in @apollo/composition. A fix is available for @apollo/composition — see the affected versions and patch details below.
@apollo/composition has Improper Enforcement of Access Control on Interface Types and Fields
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-mx7m-j9xf-62hw.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-mx7m-j9xf-62hw plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 376,715 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.
@apollo/compositionnpmDescription
Summary
A vulnerability in Apollo Federation's composition logic allowed some queries to Apollo Router to improperly bypass access controls on types/fields. Apollo Federation incorrectly allowed user-defined access control directives on interface types/fields, which could be bypassed by instead querying the implementing object types/fields in Apollo Router via inline or named fragments. A fix to composition logic in Federation now disallows interfaces types and fields to contain user-defined access control directives.
Details
Apollo Federation allows users to specify access control directives (@authenticated, @requiresScopes, and @policy) to protect object and interface types and fields. However, the GraphQL specification does not define inheritance rules for directives from interfaces to their implementations. When querying object or interface types/fields, Apollo Router will enforce any directives on those object or interface types/fields, but ignore any directives on interface types/fields they implement. This inconsistent enforcement behavior leads to unexpected runtime security gaps.
Who is impacted
This vulnerability impacts Apollo Federation customers defining @authenticated, @requiresScopes, or @policy directives on interface types/fields.
Scope of Impact
This vulnerability could allow a malicious actor to craft a query that can bypass access control requirements on the interface types/fields by instead querying them via implementing object types/fields that don't have the same access control requirements via inline or named fragments.
Patches
This vulnerability has been fixed in Apollo Federation's composition logic by rejecting user-defined access control directives entirely on interface types and fields (note that access control directives on @interfaceObject fields are not rejected, as those are really specifying requirements on the virtual object fields). Instead, Apollo Federation's composition logic will automatically generate access control directives for interface types/fields in the supergraph schema based on the access control directives on the implementations in subgraph schemas.
Note that this is a breaking change to Apollo Federation, as it no longer allows user-defined access control directives directly on interfaces types and fields. You will need to remove all access control requirements on interface types/fields and manually apply them to each implementing object type/field, where appropriate.
If users are using the Apollo Studio build pipeline with federation version 2.9 or above, then this composition patch version update is automatic and they only need to adjust the access control requirements in your subgraph schemas as mentioned above.
If users are using Apollo Rover for local composition, they will need to update its composition version (after updating Apollo Router, if necessary) to one of the following versions:
- 2.9.5+
- 2.10.4+
- 2.11.5+
- 2.12.1+
Users will then need adjust the access control requirements in your subgraph schemas as mentioned above.
Workarounds
- If using Apollo Rover with an unpatched composition version or are using the Apollo Studio build pipeline with Federation version 2.8 or below, users should manually copy the access control requirements on interface types/fields to each implementing object type/field where appropriate. Do not remove those access control requirements from the interface types/fields, as unpatched Apollo Composition will not automatically generate them in the supergraph schema.
- Customers not using Apollo Router access control features (
@authenticated,@requiresScopes, or@policydirectives) or not specifying access control requirements on interface types/fields are not affected and do not need to take action.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📦npm | @apollo/composition | all versions | 2.9.5npm install @apollo/composition@2.9.5 |
| 📦npm | @apollo/composition | ≥ 2.10.0-alpha.3&&< 2.10.4 | 2.10.4npm install @apollo/composition@2.10.4 |
| 📦npm | @apollo/composition | ≥ 2.11.0-preview.1&&< 2.11.5 | 2.11.5npm install @apollo/composition@2.11.5 |
| 📦npm | @apollo/composition | ≥ 2.12.0-preview.1&&< 2.12.1 | 2.12.1npm install @apollo/composition@2.12.1 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @apollo/composition, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update @apollo/composition to 2.9.5 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-mx7m-j9xf-62hw is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-mx7m-j9xf-62hw can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-mx7m-j9xf-62hw. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-mx7m-j9xf-62hw in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-mx7m-j9xf-62hw across npm dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.