EEF-CVE-2026-82741 CVE-2026-82741 GHSA-2mmm-gc86-7jgg
Ash.Type.Union with :map_with_tag does not force the tag on dump, enabling tag confusion
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Unknown · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.19%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.55% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-1287 Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input
- Fix
3.32.2- Upgrade ash to this version or later
Description
Summary
Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input vulnerability in ash-project ash lets an attacker confuse the stored type tag of an Ash.Type.Union value that uses storage: :map_with_tag, bypassing that member's validation and any tag-based authorization.
For a union with storage: :map_with_tag, each member is identified in storage by a configured tag and tag_value. Ash.Type.Union.dump_to_native/2 (lib/ash/type/union.ex) did not force the configured tag when writing the value, so a tag carried in the submitted value was persisted verbatim. An attacker can therefore store a value whose data belongs to one member but whose tag names a different member. On read the value is re-selected by its tag and treated as the incompatible member (a type confusion), bypassing the real member's constraints and any logic or policy that branches on the union tag. The fix drops any incoming tag and forces the configured tag value on dump.
This issue affects ash: from 2.14.18 before 3.32.2.
Affected versions
Hex
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| ash | >= 2.14.18, < 3.32.2 |
3.32.2 |
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 → 3.32.2
- mix
{:ash, "~> 3.32.2"} # then: mix deps.update ash
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
Weakness
CWE-1287: Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input
The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.
How to prevent it
- 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.
References
Advisories
Fixes and patches
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| 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, Peter Ullrich, Zach Daniel / Ash Project
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