EEF-CVE-2026-56812 CVE-2026-56812 GHSA-63mc-hw7g-86rr
Phoenix JavaScript presence client crashes on presence keys colliding with Object.prototype members in Presence.syncState/syncDiff
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.80%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 56.47% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-754 Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Summary
Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions vulnerability in phoenixframework phoenix (Presence JavaScript client) allows an attacker with ordinary channel access to cause a persistent client-side denial of service against every viewer of a presence channel topic.
This vulnerability is associated with program files assets/js/phoenix/presence.js and program routines Presence.syncState and Presence.syncDiff.
The Phoenix JavaScript presence client checks whether a presence already exists with a bare truthiness test (state[key]) instead of an own-property check. Presence keys can be attacker-controlled, because applications track presences under a username or id supplied by the client. A user who joins a channel choosing a key that is an Object.prototype member name (__proto__, constructor, toString, hasOwnProperty, and similar) makes that lookup return JavaScript's built-in Object.prototype instead of undefined. Because the prototype is truthy, the code treats it as an existing presence and reads .metas.map(...) off it, which throws an uncaught TypeError.
The exception propagates out of the presence message handler, so the local state is never updated and onSync() never fires. Because the malicious key is tracked on the server, it is re-pushed on every presence update and keeps re-throwing, so presence sync stays broken for every viewer of that channel topic until the attacker leaves. Both syncState and syncDiff use the same unsafe existence-check pattern. The impact is limited to the affected topic and is a read-time confusion of the prototype object, not a mutation of Object.prototype (it is not prototype pollution).
This issue affects phoenix: from 1.2.0-rc.0 before 1.5.15, from 1.6.0-rc.0 before 1.6.17, from 1.7.0-rc.0 before 1.7.24, and from 1.8.0-rc.0 before 1.8.9; phoenix: from 1.2.0-rc.0 before 1.5.15, from 1.6.0-rc.0 before 1.6.17, from 1.7.0-rc.0 before 1.7.24, and from 1.8.0-rc.0 before 1.8.9.
Workarounds
Reject or sanitize presence keys that collide with JavaScript Object.prototype member names (for example __proto__, constructor, prototype, toString, hasOwnProperty) before calling Phoenix.Presence.track, or namespace every presence key with a fixed prefix so that no key can equal a prototype member name. Alternatively, derive presence keys from server-controlled, validated values instead of raw user input.
Configurations
The application must use Phoenix.Presence (or otherwise drive the Phoenix JavaScript presence client) and track presences under keys that are influenced by untrusted client input, for example a username or id chosen by the connecting user. Applications that derive presence keys exclusively from server-controlled, validated values are not affected.
Affected versions
Hex
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| phoenix | >= 1.2.0-rc.0, < 1.5.15>= 1.6.0-rc.0, < 1.6.17>= 1.7.0-rc.0, < 1.7.24>= 1.8.0-rc.0, < 1.8.9 |
1.5.151.6.171.7.241.8.9 |
| phoenix | >= 1.2.0-rc.0, < 1.5.15 |
1.5.15 |
| phoenix | >= 1.6.0-rc.0, < 1.6.17 |
1.6.17 |
| phoenix | >= 1.7.0-rc.0, < 1.7.24 |
1.7.24 |
| phoenix | >= 1.8.0-rc.0, < 1.8.9 |
1.8.9 |
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| phoenix | >= 1.2.0-rc.0, < 1.5.15>= 1.6.0-rc.0, < 1.6.17>= 1.7.0-rc.0, < 1.7.24>= 1.8.0-rc.0, < 1.8.9 |
1.5.151.6.171.7.241.8.9 |
| phoenix | >= 1.2.0-rc.0, < 1.5.15 |
1.5.15 |
| phoenix | >= 1.6.0-rc.0, < 1.6.17 |
1.6.17 |
| phoenix | >= 1.7.0-rc.0, < 1.7.24 |
1.7.24 |
| phoenix | >= 1.8.0-rc.0, < 1.8.9 |
1.8.9 |
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.
phoenix Hex → 1.8.9
- mix
{:phoenix, "~> 1.8.9"} # then: mix deps.update phoenix
phoenix npm → 1.8.9
- npm
npm install phoenix@1.8.9- yarn
yarn add phoenix@1.8.9- pnpm
pnpm add phoenix@1.8.9
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-754: Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Choose languages with features such as exception handling that force the programmer to anticipate unusual conditions that may generate exceptions. Custom exceptions may need to be developed to handle unusual business-logic conditions. Be careful not to pass sensitive exceptions back to the user (CWE-209, CWE-248).
- Implementation: Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
- Implementation: If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. Exposing additional information to a potential attacker in the context of an exceptional condition can help the attacker determine what attack vectors are most likely to succeed beyond DoS.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery.
- Architecture and Design: Use system limits, which should help to prevent resource exhaustion. However, the product should still handle low resource conditions since they may still occur.
References
Advisories
Fixes and patches
- github.com/phoenixframework/phoenix/commit/7f7b971c1ea0994e3fbd1c11ddb05e780bd3…
- github.com/phoenixframework/phoenix/commit/89a1c4be161e436241e12b2378a719904b9b…
- github.com/phoenixframework/phoenix/commit/b90b22521465ece00eb5a19d5aa2b9465b20…
- github.com/phoenixframework/phoenix/commit/beffc4da1e787e572121f68902c63daf4fe7…
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-6983-jfq8-485w Phoenix transports do not limit channel joins per connection, enabling process-exhaustion denial of service | High | Also affects phoenix |
| GHSA-628h-q48j-jr6q Long-poll NDJSON body splitting causes unbounded memory allocation in Phoenix | High | Also affects phoenix |
| GHSA-p8f7-22gq-m7j9 Phoenix before 1.6.14 mishandles check_origin wildcarding | High | Also affects phoenix |
| GHSA-cmfh-8f8r-fj96 Phoenix Arbitrary URL Redirect | Medium | Also affects phoenix |
| GHSA-qq8j-7v2v-3rwp undici WebSocket client vulnerable to Denial of Service via failed HTTP/2 handshake | High | Same weakness, CWE-754 |
| RUSTSEC-2026-0324 Guest can panic host through filesystem timestamp before the epoch on wasip3 | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-754 |
| GHSA-v39v-59xw-j98g Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can suppress calendar alerts instance-wide via a non-numeric alert value | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-754 |
| GHSA-rx4f-c7p8-82vq undici vulnerable to Denial of Service via WebSocketStream unclean close | High | Same weakness, CWE-754 |
Credits: Jonatan Männchen / EEF, José Valim, Peter Ullrich, Steffen Deusch
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