EEF-CVE-2025-48043 CVE-2025-48043 GHSA-7r7f-9xpj-jmr7

Bypass and runtime policies that can never pass may be incorrectly applied in filter authorization

High Hex

Severity: 0.0 / 10; High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.40%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 33.70% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 3.6.2; Upgrade ash to this version or later

Description

Summary

Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash allows Authentication Bypass.

This issue affects ash: from 0.1.1 before 3.6.2.

Affected versions

Hex

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
ash	`>= 0.1.1, < 3.6.2`	`3.6.2`
ash	`< 3.6.2`	`3.6.2`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

ash Hex → `3.6.2`

mix

{:ash, "~> 3.6.2"} # then: mix deps.update ash

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Attack requirements: None
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system): High
Integrity (vulnerable system): High
Availability (vulnerable system): None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems): None
Integrity (subsequent systems): None
Availability (subsequent systems): None

Weakness

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

Fixes and patches

github.com/ash-project/ash/commit/66d81300065b970da0d2f4528354835d2418c7ae

Packages

Timeline

Oct 10, 2025 Published
Oct 19, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
EEF-CVE-2026-96581 An upsert on the primary key in Ash ignores attribute multitenancy, so one tenant can read, overwrite and take over another tenant's records	Not rated yet	Also affects ash
EEF-CVE-2026-114214 Loading a through relationship with a limit of 1 in Ash ignores the through path and returns unrelated destination records	Not rated yet	Also affects ash
EEF-CVE-2026-101028 Ash.count, Ash.exists and Ash.aggregate skip related resources' read policies in filters and sorts	Not rated yet	Also affects ash
EEF-CVE-2026-94201 Filtering an :atom attribute with unsafe_to_atom? can exhaust the BEAM atom table in Ash	Not rated yet	Also affects ash
EEF-CVE-2026-93477 Private action arguments can be set by user input on the bulk destroy and bulk update paths in Ash	Not rated yet	Also affects ash
EEF-CVE-2026-86338 Ash field policies do not filter-nil forbidden calculations and aggregates, enabling an information-disclosure oracle	Not rated yet	Also affects ash
EEF-CVE-2026-82752 Ash string length constraints count graphemes, so a combining-mark string of any size passes max_length	Not rated yet	Also affects ash
EEF-CVE-2026-82747 Ash.Policy.Authorizer returns records denied by a runtime read policy to any actor	Not rated yet	Also affects ash

Credits: Jonatan Männchen / EEF, Zach Daniel

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor