| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash_typescript allows an unauthorized RPC caller to read attribute values that Ash field policies denied.
When a field policy denies an attribute, Ash substitutes %Ash.ForbiddenField{}, which retains the real value in original_value because embedded resources must remain writable, and hides it from Inspect rather than removing it. AshTypescript.Rpc.ResultProcessor strips these markers to nil on its template-driven paths, but normalize_primitive/1 in lib/ash_typescript/rpc/result_processor.ex had no such clause, so a marker fell through to the generic struct branch which calls Map.from_struct/1 and serializes every key, original_value included. The denied value is returned to the caller inside the marker that represents its own denial.
The simplest trigger is an action returning an embedded resource as a map, which routes through normalize_resource_struct/2 with an empty template. normalize_value_for_json/1 is a public, unguarded entry point to the same path.
This issue affects ash_typescript: from 0.11.0 before 0.18.0. |
| URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') vulnerability in ash-project ash_typescript allows an attacker who controls a path-parameter value to redirect a generated client's request, and the credentials attached to it, to an unintended route or an external origin.
The URL builders in lib/ash_typescript/typed_controller/codegen/route_renderer.ex replace each :param placeholder with a bare template interpolation and never call encodeURIComponent, so the value reaches executeTypedControllerRequest raw. A value containing ../ is normalised away by the fetch URL resolver and reaches a different route, while ? or # truncates the path and can smuggle or override query parameters. For a route whose path begins with a parameter, a value such as /evil.example.com/x yields the protocol-relative URL //evil.example.com/x, sending the request and the credentials from TypedControllerConfig to an attacker-controlled host. Nothing constrains the value at runtime: get_path_param_type/2 emits only a TypeScript type, which is erased.
The query-string path is unaffected, since URLSearchParams.set encodes its own values.
This issue affects ash_typescript: from 0.15.0 before 0.18.0. |
| Improper Input Validation vulnerability in ash-project ash_typescript allows a remote attacker to submit argument values outside a declared allowlist or bound on typed-controller routes.
AshTypescript.TypedController.RequestHandler in lib/ash_typescript/typed_controller/request_handler.ex calls Ash.Type.cast_input/3 and treats an {:ok, cast} result as fully validated. In Ash these are separate steps: cast_input/3 only coerces the term, while every constraint declared on the argument is applied by Ash.Type.apply_constraints/3, which this path never calls. Constraints such as one_of, max_length, min and max, and match are therefore inert, so a value outside a declared allowlist is accepted and passed to the route handler. Codegen renders the same constraints into the generated TypeScript types, so an allowlist appears enforced to a TypeScript caller while any other HTTP client ignores it. Empty-string to nil normalization also lives in apply_constraints, so the allow_nil?: false check accepts "" for a required argument.
Where a constraint gates a role, a status, or a sort direction, this becomes a privilege or state-machine bypass.
This issue affects ash_typescript: from 0.15.0 before 0.18.0. |
| Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information vulnerability in ash-project ash_typescript allows an unauthenticated attacker to read internal application data from an HTTP 500 response body.
When a typed-controller route handler returns anything other than a %Plug.Conn{}, dispatch/3 in lib/ash_typescript/typed_controller/request_handler.ex passes the value to unexpected_return/2, which interpolates inspect(value, limit: 50) directly into the response message. The limit option bounds elements per collection rather than the term as a whole, so a handler falling through with a term such as {:error, %User{}} or a changeset serialises its full field set, including hashed passwords, tokens, and tenant identifiers, into the JSON error returned to the caller.
This contradicts the module's own posture elsewhere: the rescue clause gates Exception.message/1 behind AshTypescript.typed_controller_show_raised_errors?/0 and otherwise returns a generic message, while this path is ungated and always echoes.
This issue affects ash_typescript: from 0.15.0 before 0.18.0. |
| Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input vulnerability in ash-project ash allows an attacker to submit a non-finite decimal value that bypasses numeric bounds constraints or fails later operations on the value.
Ash.Type.Decimal cast input through Ecto's decimal cast in cast_input/2 and cast_stored/2 (lib/ash/type/decimal.ex) without checking that the resulting value is finite. Elixir's Decimal represents Infinity and NaN as valid structs, so a value such as "Infinity" or "NaN" passed casting and was persisted. Because NaN compares as false against every bound, min and max constraints do not reject it, and the stored special value later raises when used in Decimal arithmetic or is refused by the data layer, failing subsequent requests. The fix rejects any non-finite Decimal during casting.
This issue affects ash: from 1.28.0 before 3.32.2. |
| Not Failing Securely (Failing Open) vulnerability in ash-project ash skips an Ash.Reactor change when the guard controlling it raises, so a change meant to run does not.
An Ash.Reactor change step can be gated by where validations that decide whether the change runs. Ash.Reactor.ChangeStep (lib/ash/reactor/steps/change_step.ex) evaluated those guards in apply_where_clauses/3, and apply_validation rescued any exception into {:error, error}. The reduce treated that identically to a guard whose condition was simply not met and bypassed the change. So when a guard raises (for example on attacker-influenced input), a change that enforces a security-relevant modification is skipped rather than failing the step. The fix distinguishes a raised exception (now {:raised, error}) and halts the step with an error, failing closed.
This issue affects ash: from 3.0.0-rc.17 before 3.32.2. |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash allows an actor to update records forbidden by resource policies through the atomic path of Ash.update_many/4.
Ash.update_many/4 runs as a single atomic statement (a data-layer update_many, for example a SQL MERGE) whenever an atomic strategy is used and the data layer supports it. Ash.Actions.Update.UpdateMany (lib/ash/actions/update/update_many.ex) took that path even under authorize?: true without applying the resource's policies, so the statement updated every row matched by primary key regardless of the policy filter that authorization would impose. An actor could therefore update records the policies forbid, such as rows belonging to another actor or tenant. The fix restricts the atomic path to data layers supporting changeset filters when authorizing, authorizes each changeset, and merges the resulting policy filter into each changeset so the statement only touches authorized rows.
This issue affects ash: from 3.29.0 before 3.32.2. |
| Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash authorizes an aggregate under one read action while computing it under another, so an aggregate can run with policies that do not match the action it was authorized against.
Ash.Actions.Aggregate groups aggregates by their {authorize?, read_action} and authorizes each group under that read action, but when building the data query it selected the action as opts[:action] || read_action || <primary read> (lib/ash/actions/aggregate.ex). When a caller passed an :action option, the aggregate query ran under that action while authorization had been computed for the group's own read_action. If the run action's read policies are more permissive than the authorized one, the aggregate (a count or sum) is computed over records the authorized action's policies would have excluded, disclosing information about data the actor cannot read. The fix runs the aggregate under the same read_action it is authorized against.
This issue affects ash: from 3.5.13 before 3.32.2. |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Protection Mechanism Failure vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to bypass access restrictions and gain escalated privileges. |
| Dell PowerStore, an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Elevation of privileges. |
| Dell PowerStore contains an OS Command Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges. |
| Dell PowerStore contains an Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code with root privileges.. |
| Dell PowerStore contains an OS Command Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges. |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Code Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code with root privileges. |
| Dell PowerStore contains an Authentication Bypass by Spoofing vulnerability. An authenticated attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability to escalate privileges to Administrator. |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Command Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges. |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Protection Mechanism Failure vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to write attacker-controlled content to arbitrary filesystem paths. |
| Dell PowerStore contains an Argument Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to gain unauthorized access to sensitive sensitive system information. |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Protection Mechanism Failure vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to bypass access restrictions and gain escalated privileges. |
| Dell PowerStore SDNAS contains a Missing Authentication for Critical Function vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Filesystem access. |
