Skip to content

fix: require protobuf 6.33.5 in Bazel Workspace to address CVE-2026-0994#17254

Draft
parthea wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
bump-protobuf
Draft

fix: require protobuf 6.33.5 in Bazel Workspace to address CVE-2026-0994#17254
parthea wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
bump-protobuf

Conversation

@parthea
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@parthea parthea commented May 26, 2026

This PR will be used to debug the changes needed to upgrade Protobuf in the Bazel Workspace. Also see #17349

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request updates the minimum required version of protobuf to 6.33.5 (and updates related Bazel dependencies) to address security vulnerability CVE-2026-0994. The feedback points out that setting constraints to protobuf>=7 in Python 3.13 and 3.14 testing templates unnecessarily excludes the secure 6.33.5 version and forces a major upgrade. Additionally, recommending 7.x in the package template is confusing since the minimum supported version is within the 6.x series, so recommending 6.x remains more appropriate.

grpcio>=1
proto-plus>=1
protobuf>=6
protobuf>=7
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

high

Setting the constraint to protobuf>=7 excludes the secure 6.33.5 version that this PR is introducing. It also forces a major version upgrade to 7.x, which may not be fully compatible or available. It should be set to protobuf>=6.33.5 to align with the minimum secure version specified in setup.py.

protobuf>=6.33.5

grpcio>=1
proto-plus>=1
protobuf>=6
protobuf>=7
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

high

Setting the constraint to protobuf>=7 excludes the secure 6.33.5 version that this PR is introducing. It also forces a major version upgrade to 7.x, which may not be fully compatible or available. It should be set to protobuf>=6.33.5 to align with the minimum secure version specified in setup.py.

protobuf>=6.33.5

_recommendation = " (we recommend 6.x)"
_next_supported_version = "6.33.5"
_next_supported_version_tuple = (6, 33, 5)
_recommendation = " (we recommend 7.x)"
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

Since the minimum supported version is 6.33.5 (which is a 6.x version), recommending 7.x is unnecessary and potentially confusing for users who are on an older 6.x version (e.g., 6.30.0). They only need to upgrade to 6.33.5 or later within the 6.x series. Recommending 6.x is more appropriate.

        _recommendation = " (we recommend 6.x)"

@parthea parthea changed the title fix: require protobuf 6.33.5 to address CVE-2026-0994 fix: require protobuf 6.33.5 in Bazel Workspace to address CVE-2026-0994 Jun 2, 2026
parthea added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2026
Require Protobuf 6.33.5 to address
[CVE-2026-0994](GHSA-7gcm-g887-7qv7). As
per https://protobuf.dev/support/version-support/#python and
https://protobuf.dev/support/version-support/#duration, Protobuf 5.x is
no longer supported.

The changes to bump Protobuf in the bazel WORKSPACE file will be done in
a [separate
PR](#17254).

The minimum versions of `google-api-core` and `proto-plus` and others
also need to be versions that support Protobuf 6
https://github.com/googleapis/python-api-core/releases/tag/v2.24.2
https://github.com/googleapis/proto-plus-python/releases/tag/v1.26.1

Also see the client library versions which allow Protobuf 6.x in PR
#13644
(https://github.com/googleapis/google-cloud-python/blob/release-please--branches--main--release-notes/release-notes.md)

Towards b/420641246
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant