Skip to content

EEF-CVE-2026-82752 CVE-2026-82752 GHSA-cwjv-574p-59f6

Ash string length constraints count graphemes, so a combining-mark string of any size passes max_length

Not rated yet Hex
Severity
0.0 / 10
Unknown · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.18%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 7.56% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-1284 Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input
Fix
3.33.0
Upgrade ash to this version or later

Description

Summary

Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input vulnerability in ash-project ash allows an attacker to store a value of arbitrary size in an attribute whose length constraint should bound it.

Ash measures string length with Elixir's String.length/1, which counts Unicode graphemes, in the max_length and min_length constraints of Ash.Type.String (apply_constraints/2 in lib/ash/type/string.ex), in Ash.Resource.Validation.StringLength, and in the string_length expression function. A grapheme carries an unbounded number of combining marks, so a base character followed by a million combining acute accents is one grapheme and megabytes of data, and satisfies max_length: 2. Where the data layer imposes no independent limit (ETS, Mnesia, or a Postgres text column) the whole value is persisted, so an attacker can write an entire request body into an attribute declared with a small maximum and grow storage without bound.

The counting unit also disagrees with the storage layer, which counts codepoints rather than graphemes, so a value accepted by the constraint can still be rejected or truncated by the column. A Postgres varchar(n) column bounds the value itself and is not exposed.

This issue affects ash: from 0.10.0 before 3.33.0.

Configurations

A resource attribute must carry a max_length constraint (or an equivalent string_length validation) fed from client input, and the data layer must impose no independent size limit of its own. The ETS and Mnesia data layers and Postgres text columns store the value in full; a Postgres varchar(n) column bounds it independently and is not exposed.

Affected versions

Hex

PackageVulnerableFixed in
ash
>= 0.10.0, < 3.33.0
3.33.0

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 → 3.33.0

mix
{:ash, "~> 3.33.0"} # 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:H/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)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-1284: Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input

The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.

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

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-2026-82747
Ash.Policy.Authorizer returns records denied by a runtime read policy to any actor
Not rated yet Also affects ash
EEF-CVE-2026-82749
Ash relationship parent(...) filter degrades to an IS NULL match when the parent field is unresolved, leaking scoped records
Not rated yet Also affects ash

Credits: Jonatan Männchen / EEF, 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