Vulnerability database

4 results

• Oct 25, 2026Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash_postgres allows a user to read another tenant's record through a skipped upsert.CVE-2026-115635 · Other software · ash-project · reported by 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49dbMedium 6

  Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash_postgres allows a user to read another tenant's record through a skipped upsert. When Ash.bulk_create/4 or a single create runs as an upsert with return_skipped_upsert?: true and the upsert is skipped (for example because its upsert_condition does not hold), AshPostgres.DataLayer reads the existing row back by the upsert identity in do_bulk_create/3 and upsert/4. That lookup did not apply the resource's attribute multitenancy, so on a resource using strategy :attribute it could match and return the row of another tenant with the same identity values, exposing its fields to the caller. This issue affects ash_postgres: from 2.6.22 before 2.15.2.

  Product

  ash_postgres

  What to do

  Apply the vendor’s update. The NVD record links to the advisory.

  Full record and what to do →NVD recordcna.erlef.orggithub.com

• Oct 25, 2026Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash_postgres allows a user to load destination records linked to a source record only through another tenanCVE-2026-115627 · Other software · ash-project · reported by 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49dbMedium 6

  Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash_postgres allows a user to load destination records linked to a source record only through another tenant's join rows. When a many_to_many relationship, or a through relationship, is loaded with a lateral join (for example with a per-record limit or sort), AshPostgres.DataLayer builds the query for the join resource, and for each resource along a through path, in lateral_join_query/3 and through_step_queries/4 without running that resource's read action, which is where attribute multitenancy is applied. When those resources use strategy :attribute multitenancy, rows belonging to other tenants were joined, so the load returned destination records that the caller's tenant is not related to. This issue affects ash_postgres: from 0.38.0 before 2.15.2.

  Product

  ash_postgres

  What to do

  Apply the vendor’s update. The NVD record links to the advisory.

  Full record and what to do →NVD recordcna.erlef.orggithub.com

• Aug 30, 2026Unchecked Return Value vulnerability in ash-project ash_postgres allows a user who can drive a tenant rename to a name that collides with an existing tenant's sCVE-2026-78699 · Other software · ash-project · reported by 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49dbHigh 7.2

  Unchecked Return Value vulnerability in ash-project ash_postgres allows a user who can drive a tenant rename to a name that collides with an existing tenant's schema to have their tenant record repointed at that other tenant's live schema, gaining access to its data. AshPostgres.MultiTenancy.rename_tenant/3 issues the ALTER SCHEMA ... RENAME TO ... with the non-raising Ecto.Adapters.SQL.query/2, discards its {:ok, _} | {:error, _} result, and unconditionally returns :ok. PostgreSQL rejects the rename when the target schema already exists (and on insufficient privilege or lock timeout), but that failure never reaches the caller. The calling manage_tenant update action therefore sees success and commits the tenant row with the new name, which is the schema of a different existing tenant, so subsequent reads and writes for that tenant run against the other tenant's data. This issue affects ash_postgres: from 0.25.0 before 2.13.0.

  Product

  ash_postgres

  What to do

  Apply the vendor’s update. The NVD record links to the advisory.

  Full record and what to do →NVD recordcna.erlef.orggithub.com

• Oct 23, 2024AshPostgres is the PostgreSQL data layer for Ash Framework.CVE-2024-49756 · Other software · ash-project · reported by GitHubMedium 5.3

  AshPostgres is the PostgreSQL data layer for Ash Framework. Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.4.10, in certain very specific situations, it was possible for the policies of an update action to be skipped. This occurred only on "empty" update actions (no changing fields), and would allow their hooks (side effects) to be performed when they should not have been. Note that this does not allow reading new data that the user should not have had access to, only triggering a side effect a user should not have been able to trigger. To be vulnerable, an affected user must have an update action that is on a resource with no attributes containing an "update default" (updated_at timestamp, for example); can be performed atomically; does not have `require_atomic? false`; has at least one authorizer (typically `Ash.Policy.Authorizer`); and has at least one `change` (on the resource's `changes` block or in the action itself). This is where the side-effects would be performed when they should not have been. This problem has been patched in `2.4.10` of `ash_postgres`. Several workarounds are available. Potentially affected users may determine that none of their actions are vulnerab

  Product

  ash_postgres

  What to do

  Apply the vendor’s update. The NVD record links to the advisory.

  Full record and what to do →NVD recordelixirforum.comgist.github.com

Where this comes from: the exploited list is CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. Everything else is the whole National Vulnerability Database, where each record is published by the team that found the bug (Wordfence, Patchstack, WPScan, the vendors themselves and others); we show who. Exploit odds are FIRST’s EPSS, updated daily. Titles and categories are ours, so check the linked record before acting on a detail. For a write-up of the big ones, see our advisories. Every vendor, and every WordPress plugin and theme with a recorded flaw, also has its own page. All of it is free to reuse as JSON, CSV or RSS.