GHSA-jjf9-w5vj-r6vp CVE-2026-34593
Ash.Type.Module.cast_input/2 atom exhaustion via unchecked Module.concat allows BEAM VM crash
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.44%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 38.20% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
- CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
- Fix
3.22.0- Upgrade ash to this version or later
Description
Summary
Ash.Type.Module.cast_input/2 unconditionally creates a new Erlang atom via Module.concat([value]) for any user-supplied binary string that starts with "Elixir.", before verifying whether the referenced module exists. Because Erlang atoms are never garbage-collected and the BEAM atom table has a hard default limit of approximately 1,048,576 entries, an attacker who can submit values to any resource attribute or argument of type :module can exhaust this table and crash the entire BEAM VM, taking down the application.
Details
Setup: A resource with a :module-typed attribute exposed to user input, which is a supported and documented usage of the Ash.Type.Module built-in type:
defmodule MyApp.Widget do
use Ash.Resource, domain: MyApp, data_layer: AshPostgres.DataLayer
attributes do
uuid_primary_key :id
attribute :handler_module, :module, public?: true
end
actions do
defaults [:read, :destroy]
create :create do
accept [:handler_module]
end
end
end
Vulnerable code in lib/ash/type/module.ex, lines 105-113:
def cast_input("Elixir." <> _ = value, _) do
module = Module.concat([value]) # <-- Creates new atom unconditionally
if Code.ensure_loaded?(module) do
{:ok, module}
else
:error # <-- Returns error but atom is already created
end
end
Exploit: Submit repeated Ash.create requests (e.g., via a JSON API endpoint) with unique "Elixir.*" strings:
# Attacker-controlled loop (or HTTP requests to an API endpoint)
for i <- 1..1_100_000 do
Ash.Changeset.for_create(MyApp.Widget, :create, %{handler_module: "Elixir.Attack#{i}"})
|> Ash.create()
# Each iteration: Module.concat(["Elixir.Attack#{i}"]) creates a new atom
# cast_input returns :error but the atom :"Elixir.Attack#{i}" persists
end
# After ~1,048,576 unique strings: BEAM crashes with system_limit
Contrast: The non-"Elixir." path in the same function correctly uses String.to_existing_atom/1, which is safe because it only looks up atoms that already exist:
def cast_input(value, _) when is_binary(value) do
atom = String.to_existing_atom(value) # safe - raises if atom doesn't exist
...
end
Additional occurrence: cast_stored/2 at line 141 contains the identical pattern, which is reachable when reading :module-typed values from the database if an attacker can write arbitrary "Elixir.*" strings to the relevant database column.
Impact
An attacker who can submit requests to any API endpoint backed by an Ash resource with a :module-typed attribute or argument can crash the entire BEAM VM process. This is a complete denial of service: all resources served by that VM instance (not just the targeted resource) become unavailable. The crash cannot be prevented once the atom table is full, and recovery requires a full process restart.
Fix direction: Replace Module.concat([value]) with String.to_existing_atom(value) wrapped in a rescue ArgumentError block (as already done in the non-"Elixir." branch), or validate that the atom already exists before calling Module.concat by first attempting String.to_existing_atom and only falling back to Module.concat on success.
Affected versions
Hex
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| ash | < 3.22.0 |
3.22.0 |
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 → 3.22.0
- mix
{:ash, "~> 3.22.0"} # then: mix deps.update ash
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:H/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)
- High
- 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-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
- Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
- Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
- 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: 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: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
- 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. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
- Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).
References
Advisories
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 |
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