Skip to content

EEF-CVE-2026-82745 CVE-2026-82745 GHSA-92x7-q3h5-wf88

ETS and Mnesia data layers overwrite an existing record on create instead of enforcing primary-key uniqueness

Not rated yet Hex
Severity
0.0 / 10
Unknown · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.17%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 6.42% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-284 Improper Access Control
Fix
3.32.2
Upgrade ash to this version or later

Description

Summary

Improper Access Control vulnerability in ash-project ash lets a create action overwrite an existing record when the ETS or Mnesia data layer is used, because neither enforced primary-key uniqueness on insert.

Unlike a SQL data layer, whose unique primary-key constraint rejects a duplicate, the ETS and Mnesia data layers implemented create as a keyed insert that replaces any existing entry with the same primary key (lib/ash/data_layer/ets/ets.ex, lib/ash/data_layer/mnesia/mnesia.ex). An actor who can set the primary key on a create (for example a user-supplied string or integer key) can submit a create whose key matches an existing record and silently overwrite it, destroying and replacing another entity's data without going through the update action or its policies. The fix rejects a create whose primary key already exists with an already-taken error, and only allows duplicates for keyless resources.

This issue affects ash: from 0.4.0 before 3.32.2.

Affected versions

Hex

PackageVulnerableFixed in
ash
>= 0.4.0, < 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:H/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)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-284: Improper Access Control

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
  • Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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

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