Skip to content

GHSA-3988-q8q7-p787 CVE-2025-32782

ash_authentication has email link auto-click account confirmation vulnerability

Medium Hex
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.32%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 24.55% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
Fix
4.7.0
Upgrade ash_authentication to this version or later

Description

Impact

The confirmation flow for account creation currently uses a GET request triggered by clicking a link sent via email. Some email clients and security tools (e.g., Outlook, virus scanners, and email previewers) may automatically follow these links, unintentionally confirming the account. This allows an attacker to register an account using another user’s email and potentially have it auto-confirmed by the victim’s email client.

This does not allow attackers to take over or access existing accounts or private data. It is limited to account confirmation of new accounts only.

Patches

A mitigation has been released in version 4.7.0. You will also need to upgrade to 2.6.0 or later of ash_authentication_phoenix to take advantage of the autogenerated views for confirmation. The fix updates the confirmation flow to require explicit user interaction (such as clicking a button on the confirmation page) rather than performing the confirmation via a GET request. This ensures that automatic link prefetching or scanning by email clients does not unintentionally confirm accounts.

To mitigate, follow these steps:

  1. Upgrade ash_authentication >= 4.7.0
  2. Upgrade ash_authentication_phoenix >= 2.6.0 (if using ash_authentication_phoenix)
  3. Set require_interaction? true in your confirmation strategy.
  4. Add confirm_route to your router, if using ash_authentication_phoenix above auth_routes.

Setting require_interaction? true

modify your confirmation strategy like so:

confirmation <strategy_name> do
  ...
  require_interaction? true
end

Adding the confirm_route to your router

In order to use this new confirmation flow, you will need to add this to your router to get the desired behavior. It will add a new route to the new confirmation page LiveView. Note the path and token_as_route_param? options, required for keeping backwards compatibility with current defaults. You may need to adjust if you have changed those routes in some way.

IMPORTANT - above auth_routes

Make sure this goes above auth_routes if you are using the path option, and it begins with /auth, or whatever your configured auth_routes_prefix is. auth_routes greedily handles all routes at the configured path.

confirm_route(
  MyApp.Accounts.User,
  <confirmation_strategy_name>,
  auth_routes_prefix: "/auth",
  overrides: [MyAppWeb.AuthOverrides, AshAuthentication.Phoenix.Overrides.Default],
  # use these options to keep your currently issued confirmation emails compatible
  # without the options below, the route will default to `/<the_strategy_name>/:token`
  path: "/auth/user/<confirmation_strategy_name>",
  token_as_route_param?: false
)

Users should upgrade to version 4.7.0 as soon as possible, and set require_interaction? to true in their confirmation strategy. This will change the GET request generated for confirming to a POST request.

If you upgrade to this version and do not set require_interaction? to true, compilation will be fail with a message linking to this advisory. This error can be bypassed if, for example, you are confident that you are not affected.

Workarounds

Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading? You can disable the confirmation routes and create your own live view. We highly advised that you upgrade and take advantage of the builtin views if possible. If you are not using the provided views, you will need to add a confirmation LiveView, that does a POST to the old confirmation url instead of a GET. You would do this by taking the token a parameter out of the link, and adding it as a hidden field to a form. That form would have no inputs, only a button that posts to the confirmation URL. If you are using Liveview, this would be done with phx-trigger-action and phx-action.

Affected versions

Hex

PackageVulnerableFixed in
ash_authentication
< 4.7.0
4.7.0

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_authentication Hex → 4.7.0

mix
{:ash_authentication, "~> 4.7.0"} # then: mix deps.update ash_authentication

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
  • Architecture and Design: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
  • 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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
  • Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
EEF-CVE-2026-86688
Session id is not renewed on authentication in ash_authentication, allowing session fixation
Not rated yet Also affects ash_authentication
EEF-CVE-2026-76949
Remember-me sign-in guard reads a session key that is never written in ash_authentication, allowing session replacement
Not rated yet Also affects ash_authentication
EEF-CVE-2026-91039
dynamic_oidc identities are not namespaced by connection in ash_authentication, allowing cross-connection account takeover
Not rated yet Also affects ash_authentication
EEF-CVE-2026-88952
OAuth2 sign-in attached to an existing account without an email comparison in AshAuthentication
Not rated yet Also affects ash_authentication
EEF-CVE-2026-85500
`require_confirmed_with` is not enforced on the action and fails open on an unreadable attribute in AshAuthentication
Not rated yet Also affects ash_authentication
EEF-CVE-2026-86533
Revoked session accepted because the session jti is never checked in AshAuthentication and AshAuthentication Phoenix
Not rated yet Also affects ash_authentication
EEF-CVE-2026-81632
Single-use sign-in token placed in a redirect query string in AshAuthenticationPhoenix
Not rated yet Also affects ash_authentication
EEF-CVE-2026-80218
Sign-in token minted for one resource accepted by another in AshAuthentication
Not rated yet Also affects ash_authentication
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