| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Elasticsearch can lead to a denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A user with elevated privileges can submit a specially crafted request that causes excessive memory consumption, which may render the affected node unavailable. |
| Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to privilege escalation via Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (CAPEC-180). A user holding workflow edit permissions could cause scheduled workflow executions to run with the privileges of a different, higher-privileged user, allowing access to and modification of data beyond their own authorization scope. |
| Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic (CWE-943) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via NoSQL Injection (CAPEC-676). An authenticated user with access to the affected query functionality could submit specially crafted input that alters the intended query logic, returning data the user is not authorized to read. |
| Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (CWE-409) in Kibana can lead to a denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated user holding Streams management privileges could supply specially crafted content that expands to a far larger volume of data during processing, exhausting the memory available to Kibana. The Kibana process is terminated by the host and remains unavailable to all users until the service is restarted. |
| Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana Entity Analytics can lead to a loss of security monitoring via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). An authenticated user holding only read-level Security feature access, and no Elasticsearch privileges, could stop the recurring Privilege Monitoring engine task for a Kibana space. Privileged user monitoring then stops producing data for that space while the engine continues to report a healthy state to operators. |
| Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to unauthorized modification of data via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). An authenticated user holding only Security Solution read access in a Kibana space could enumerate and change the state of Entity Store maintainer tasks, silently disabling Entity Analytics maintenance for that space. |
| Uncaught Exception (CWE-248) in Kibana can lead to a denial of service via Input Data Manipulation (CAPEC-153). An authenticated user holding only the low-privileged feature access required to use the Observability AI Assistant can submit a specially crafted request that produces an unhandled error condition, terminating the Kibana process and denying service to all users and spaces on that instance until it is restarted. |
| Deserialization of Untrusted Data (CWE-502) in the Elasticsearch machine learning component can lead to remote code execution via Object Injection (CAPEC-586). A specially crafted trained model artifact could cause attacker-controlled logic to execute with a materially broader system-call surface than intended. Exploitation requires an authenticated user with sufficient privileges to create and deploy trained models. |
| Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) in Kibana can lead to a denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated user can submit a specially crafted request that causes excessive resource consumption, which may render Kibana unavailable. |
| Execution with Unnecessary Privileges (CWE-250) in the Kibana machine learning feature can lead to information disclosure via Privilege Abuse (CAPEC-122). An operation available to users holding only read access to the machine learning feature was performed with an internal service identity rather than the identity of the requesting user. Such a user could therefore receive data from Elasticsearch indices they are not authorized to read. No Elasticsearch cluster or index privileges are required. |
| A vulnerability has been found in NousResearch hermes-agent up to 0.18.2. This affects the function HermesACPAgent.prompt of the file acp_adapter/session.py of the component ACP Prompt Workflow. Such manipulation leads to denial of service. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. |
| Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in ash-project ash_phoenix lets an attacker who controls filter form parameters filter across relationships the resource author marked non-public, turning the returned rows into a boolean oracle over private related data.
AshPhoenix.FilterForm resolved every relationship hop in the user-supplied path with Ash.Resource.Info.related/2, which traverses private relationships, and only checked the terminal field for publicity. parse_path_and_field/2 also rewrote a field naming a relationship into an extra path segment, so field=some_private_rel was accepted too. Both path and field come straight from form params, and the resulting ref went to Ash.Query.do_filter/2 without the public-only enforcement of Ash.Filter.parse_input/2. The fix resolves each hop with Ash.Resource.Info.public_relationship/2, rejecting the first non-public hop, and requires the terminal field to be public.
This issue affects ash_phoenix: from 0.6.0-rc.1 before 2.3.25. |
| 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 Type of Input vulnerability in ash-project ash lets an attacker confuse the stored type tag of an Ash.Type.Union value that uses storage: :map_with_tag, bypassing that member's validation and any tag-based authorization.
For a union with storage: :map_with_tag, each member is identified in storage by a configured tag and tag_value. Ash.Type.Union.dump_to_native/2 (lib/ash/type/union.ex) did not force the configured tag when writing the value, so a tag carried in the submitted value was persisted verbatim. An attacker can therefore store a value whose data belongs to one member but whose tag names a different member. On read the value is re-selected by its tag and treated as the incompatible member (a type confusion), bypassing the real member's constraints and any logic or policy that branches on the union tag. The fix drops any incoming tag and forces the configured tag value on dump.
This issue affects ash: from 2.14.18 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. |
| Improper Access Control vulnerability in ash-project ash lets a create action overwrite an existing record when the ETS or Mnesia data layer is used, because neither enforced primary-key uniqueness on insert.
Unlike a SQL data layer, whose unique primary-key constraint rejects a duplicate, the ETS and Mnesia data layers implemented create as a keyed insert that replaces any existing entry with the same primary key (lib/ash/data_layer/ets/ets.ex, lib/ash/data_layer/mnesia/mnesia.ex). An actor who can set the primary key on a create (for example a user-supplied string or integer key) can submit a create whose key matches an existing record and silently overwrite it, destroying and replacing another entity's data without going through the update action or its policies. The fix rejects a create whose primary key already exists with an already-taken error, and only allows duplicates for keyless resources.
This issue affects ash: from 0.4.0 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. |
