Lovable·FixsecuritySupabaseintermediate

A Supabase Read Policy Is Too Broad in a Lovable App

Quick Answer

The read policy is broad enough to make the app work, but not narrow enough to protect ownership. In practice this often means a policy allows any signed-in user to read any row in a table that should have been owner-scoped. Start with "Audit every select policy on user-owned tables" before making broader code changes.

Quick Fix Summary

Most likely cause	The read policy is broad enough to make the app work, but not narrow enough to protect ownership. In practice this often means a policy allows any signed-in user to read any row in a table that should have been owner-scoped.
Fastest fix	Audit every select policy on user-owned tables
Use this page if	Authenticated users can read more rows than they should

You're in the right place if...

!Authenticated users can read more rows than they should
!Private data appears in lists or tables unexpectedly
!The policy says authenticated users can select, but the table holds user-specific data

Why this happens

Fix

Audit every select policy on user-owned tables

Look for policies that use broad checks like authenticated access without row ownership. If the table contains per-user data, broad select is usually the mistake.

Replace broad reads with owner-based reads

Use auth.uid() against the ownership column instead of generic authenticated access.

drop policy if exists "Authenticated users can read profiles" on profiles;

create policy "Users can read own profile"
on profiles for select
using (auth.uid() = user_id);

Split public and private data models

If some fields really are public, move them to a public table or a clearly safe view instead of widening the main table policy.

Patch the generated policy assumptions

Tell Lovable to treat signed-in users as separate users, not one trusted group.

Copy this prompt

Audit all Supabase select policies in this app. Any table with user-specific, billing, or private data should default to owner-only reads unless I explicitly say it is public. Replace broad authenticated read policies with owner-based policies and list any tables that should be split into public and private data.

Prevent this next time

Authenticated is an identity check, not an ownership check. If the table is private per user, the policy should say so directly.