CVE-2026-78216 (GCVE-0-2026-78216)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-08 16:42 – Updated: 2026-09-08 17:27
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
AshLua eval read operations can read field-policy-protected fields via aggregates
Summary
AshLua exposes Ash read actions to Lua scripts run through an eval action. A read call accepts an operation (list, min, max, first, sum, avg) that builds an ad-hoc Ash.Query.Aggregate over a named field and returns its raw value.
Ash field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with %Ash.ForbiddenField{}), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A script could therefore read a field the calling actor's field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate instead of as a field. This includes fields that are public? true but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The prior hardening only enforced the exposed-field allow-list (field visibility), which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization.
The fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource's field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible.
This issue affects ash_lua: from 0.1.0 before 0.2.2.
Severity
SSVC
Exploitation: none
Automatable: no
Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2026-09-08 17:26 UTC
CWE
- CWE-1220 - Insufficient Granularity of Access Control
Assigner
References
5 references
Impacted products
2 products
| Vendor | Product | Version | CPE status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ash-project | ash_lua |
Affected:
0.1.0 , < 0.2.2
(semver)
cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_lua:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
||
| ash-project | ash_lua |
Affected:
8675e47cca81f36594083a7e63379bac9e123e72 , < 266a5dcc56d5015b6d316c10606169e753b07450
(git)
cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_lua:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-78216",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-08T17:26:34.675766Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-08T17:27:08.856Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://repo.hex.pm",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_lua:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027"
],
"packageName": "ash_lua",
"packageURL": "pkg:hex/ash_lua",
"product": "ash_lua",
"programFiles": [
"lib/ash_lua/runtime.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027:run_read_operation/5"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua",
"vendor": "ash-project",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "0.2.2",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0.1.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"collectionURL": "https://github.com",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_lua:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027"
],
"packageName": "ash-project/ash_lua",
"packageURL": "pkg:github/ash-project/ash_lua",
"product": "ash_lua",
"programFiles": [
"lib/ash_lua/runtime.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027:run_read_operation/5"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua",
"vendor": "ash-project",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "266a5dcc56d5015b6d316c10606169e753b07450",
"status": "affected",
"version": "8675e47cca81f36594083a7e63379bac9e123e72",
"versionType": "git"
}
]
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eReachable only when an application exposes an AshLua \u003ccode\u003eeval\u003c/code\u003e action over a resource whose field policies restrict a field that the calling actor can still name as an operation aggregate (for example a \u003ccode\u003epublic? true\u003c/code\u003e but field-policy-protected attribute).\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "Reachable only when an application exposes an AshLua `eval` action over a resource whose field policies restrict a field that the calling actor can still name as an operation aggregate (for example a `public? true` but field-policy-protected attribute)."
}
],
"value": "Reachable only when an application exposes an AshLua eval action over a resource whose field policies restrict a field that the calling actor can still name as an operation aggregate (for example a public? true but field-policy-protected attribute)."
}
],
"cpeApplicability": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_lua:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "0.2.2",
"versionStartIncluding": "0.1.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
],
"operator": "AND"
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Zach Daniel / Ash Project"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Jonatan M\u00e4nnchen / EEF"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Aaron Hong / Remedy"
}
],
"dateAssigned": "2026-09-08T15:43:48.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eAshLua exposes Ash read actions to Lua scripts run through an \u003ccode\u003eeval\u003c/code\u003e action. A read call accepts an \u003ccode\u003eoperation\u003c/code\u003e (\u003ccode\u003elist\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003emin\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003emax\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003efirst\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003esum\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003eavg\u003c/code\u003e) that builds an ad-hoc \u003ccode\u003eAsh.Query.Aggregate\u003c/code\u003e over a named field and returns its raw value.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAsh field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with \u003ccode\u003e%Ash.ForbiddenField{}\u003c/code\u003e), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A script could therefore read a field the calling actor\u0027s field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate instead of as a field. This includes fields that are \u003ccode\u003epublic? true\u003c/code\u003e but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The prior hardening only enforced the exposed-field allow-list (field visibility), which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource\u0027s field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis issue affects ash_lua: from 0.1.0 before 0.2.2.\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "AshLua exposes Ash read actions to Lua scripts run through an `eval` action. A read call accepts an `operation` (`list`, `min`, `max`, `first`, `sum`, `avg`) that builds an ad-hoc `Ash.Query.Aggregate` over a named field and returns its raw value.\n\nAsh field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with `%Ash.ForbiddenField{}`), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A script could therefore read a field the calling actor\u0027s field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate instead of as a field. This includes fields that are `public? true` but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The prior hardening only enforced the exposed-field allow-list (field visibility), which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization.\n\nThe fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource\u0027s field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible.\n\nThis issue affects ash_lua: from 0.1.0 before 0.2.2."
}
],
"value": "AshLua exposes Ash read actions to Lua scripts run through an eval action. A read call accepts an operation (list, min, max, first, sum, avg) that builds an ad-hoc Ash.Query.Aggregate over a named field and returns its raw value.\n\nAsh field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with %Ash.ForbiddenField{}), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A script could therefore read a field the calling actor\u0027s field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate instead of as a field. This includes fields that are public? true but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The prior hardening only enforced the exposed-field allow-list (field visibility), which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization.\n\nThe fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource\u0027s field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible.\n\nThis issue affects ash_lua: from 0.1.0 before 0.2.2."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-1",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-1 Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 6,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-1220",
"description": "CWE-1220 Insufficient Granularity of Access Control",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-08T16:42:20.908Z",
"orgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"shortName": "EEF"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "GHSA-5whv-8rcp-x33j",
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua/security/advisories/GHSA-5whv-8rcp-x33j"
},
{
"name": "EEF CNA record for CVE-2026-78216",
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-78216.html"
},
{
"name": "OSV record EEF-CVE-2026-78216",
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-78216"
},
{
"name": "Introducing commit 8675e47 in ash-project/ash_lua",
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua/commit/8675e47cca81f36594083a7e63379bac9e123e72"
},
{
"name": "Fix commit 266a5dc in ash-project/ash_lua",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua/commit/266a5dcc56d5015b6d316c10606169e753b07450"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "AshLua eval read operations can read field-policy-protected fields via aggregates"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"assignerShortName": "EEF",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-78216",
"datePublished": "2026-09-08T16:42:20.908Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-08-31T00:45:02.446Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-08T17:27:08.856Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"epss": {
"cve": "CVE-2026-78216",
"date": "2026-09-12",
"epss": "0.00246",
"percentile": "0.15953"
},
"nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2026-78216\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\",\"published\":\"2026-09-08T17:18:30.653\",\"lastModified\":\"2026-09-08T19:29:09.680\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Deferred\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"AshLua exposes Ash read actions to Lua scripts run through an eval action. A read call accepts an operation (list, min, max, first, sum, avg) that builds an ad-hoc Ash.Query.Aggregate over a named field and returns its raw value.\\n\\nAsh field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with %Ash.ForbiddenField{}), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A script could therefore read a field the calling actor\u0027s field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate instead of as a field. This includes fields that are public? true but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The prior hardening only enforced the exposed-field allow-list (field visibility), which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization.\\n\\nThe fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource\u0027s field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible.\\n\\nThis issue affects ash_lua: from 0.1.0 before 0.2.2.\"}],\"affected\":[{\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\",\"affectedData\":[{\"vendor\":\"ash-project\",\"product\":\"ash_lua\",\"defaultStatus\":\"unaffected\",\"collectionURL\":\"https://repo.hex.pm\",\"packageName\":\"ash_lua\",\"cpes\":[\"cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_lua:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\"],\"modules\":[\"\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027\"],\"programFiles\":[\"lib/ash_lua/runtime.ex\"],\"programRoutines\":[{\"name\":\"\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027:run_read_operation/5\"}],\"repo\":\"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua\",\"packageURL\":\"pkg:hex/ash_lua\",\"versions\":[{\"version\":\"0.1.0\",\"lessThan\":\"0.2.2\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"}]},{\"vendor\":\"ash-project\",\"product\":\"ash_lua\",\"defaultStatus\":\"unaffected\",\"collectionURL\":\"https://github.com\",\"packageName\":\"ash-project/ash_lua\",\"cpes\":[\"cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_lua:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\"],\"modules\":[\"\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027\"],\"programFiles\":[\"lib/ash_lua/runtime.ex\"],\"programRoutines\":[{\"name\":\"\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027:run_read_operation/5\"}],\"repo\":\"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua\",\"packageURL\":\"pkg:github/ash-project/ash_lua\",\"versions\":[{\"version\":\"8675e47cca81f36594083a7e63379bac9e123e72\",\"lessThan\":\"266a5dcc56d5015b6d316c10606169e753b07450\",\"versionType\":\"git\",\"status\":\"affected\"}]}]}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV40\":[{\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"4.0\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X\",\"baseScore\":6.0,\"baseSeverity\":\"MEDIUM\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"LOW\",\"attackRequirements\":\"PRESENT\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"LOW\",\"userInteraction\":\"NONE\",\"vulnConfidentialityImpact\":\"HIGH\",\"vulnIntegrityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"vulnAvailabilityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"subConfidentialityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"subIntegrityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"subAvailabilityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"exploitMaturity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"confidentialityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"integrityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"availabilityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackVector\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackComplexity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackRequirements\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedPrivilegesRequired\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedUserInteraction\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Safety\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Automatable\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Recovery\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"valueDensity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"vulnerabilityResponseEffort\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"providerUrgency\":\"NOT_DEFINED\"}}],\"ssvcV203\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"ssvcData\":{\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-08T17:26:34.675766Z\",\"id\":\"CVE-2026-78216\",\"options\":[{\"exploitation\":\"none\"},{\"automatable\":\"no\"},{\"technicalImpact\":\"partial\"}],\"role\":\"CISA Coordinator\",\"version\":\"2.0.3\"}}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-1220\"}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-78216.html\",\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua/commit/266a5dcc56d5015b6d316c10606169e753b07450\",\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua/commit/8675e47cca81f36594083a7e63379bac9e123e72\",\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua/security/advisories/GHSA-5whv-8rcp-x33j\",\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\"},{\"url\":\"https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-78216\",\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\"}]}}",
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2026-78216\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"partial\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2026-09-08T17:26:34.675766Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-09-08T17:26:42.706Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"AshLua eval read operations can read field-policy-protected fields via aggregates\", \"source\": {\"discovery\": \"EXTERNAL\"}, \"credits\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"remediation developer\", \"value\": \"Zach Daniel / Ash Project\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"coordinator\", \"value\": \"Jonatan M\\u00e4nnchen / EEF\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"finder\", \"value\": \"Aaron Hong / Remedy\"}], \"impacts\": [{\"capecId\": \"CAPEC-1\", \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"CAPEC-1 Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs\"}]}], \"metrics\": [{\"format\": \"CVSS\", \"cvssV4_0\": {\"Safety\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"version\": \"4.0\", \"Recovery\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"baseScore\": 6, \"Automatable\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"MEDIUM\", \"valueDensity\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N\", \"providerUrgency\": \"NOT_DEFINED\", \"userInteraction\": \"NONE\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"attackRequirements\": \"PRESENT\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"LOW\", \"subIntegrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnIntegrityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"subAvailabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnAvailabilityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"subConfidentialityImpact\": \"NONE\", \"vulnConfidentialityImpact\": \"HIGH\", \"vulnerabilityResponseEffort\": \"NOT_DEFINED\"}, \"scenarios\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"GENERAL\"}]}], \"affected\": [{\"cpes\": [\"cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_lua:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\"], \"repo\": \"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua\", \"vendor\": \"ash-project\", \"modules\": [\"\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027\"], \"product\": \"ash_lua\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"0.1.0\", \"lessThan\": \"0.2.2\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}], \"packageURL\": \"pkg:hex/ash_lua\", \"packageName\": \"ash_lua\", \"programFiles\": [\"lib/ash_lua/runtime.ex\"], \"collectionURL\": \"https://repo.hex.pm\", \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\", \"programRoutines\": [{\"name\": \"\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027:run_read_operation/5\"}]}, {\"cpes\": [\"cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_lua:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\"], \"repo\": \"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua\", \"vendor\": \"ash-project\", \"modules\": [\"\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027\"], \"product\": \"ash_lua\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"8675e47cca81f36594083a7e63379bac9e123e72\", \"lessThan\": \"266a5dcc56d5015b6d316c10606169e753b07450\", \"versionType\": \"git\"}], \"packageURL\": \"pkg:github/ash-project/ash_lua\", \"packageName\": \"ash-project/ash_lua\", \"programFiles\": [\"lib/ash_lua/runtime.ex\"], \"collectionURL\": \"https://github.com\", \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\", \"programRoutines\": [{\"name\": \"\u0027Elixir.AshLua.Runtime\u0027:run_read_operation/5\"}]}], \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua/security/advisories/GHSA-5whv-8rcp-x33j\", \"name\": \"GHSA-5whv-8rcp-x33j\", \"tags\": [\"vendor-advisory\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-78216.html\", \"name\": \"EEF CNA record for CVE-2026-78216\", \"tags\": [\"related\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-78216\", \"name\": \"OSV record EEF-CVE-2026-78216\", \"tags\": [\"related\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua/commit/8675e47cca81f36594083a7e63379bac9e123e72\", \"name\": \"Introducing commit 8675e47 in ash-project/ash_lua\", \"tags\": [\"related\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_lua/commit/266a5dcc56d5015b6d316c10606169e753b07450\", \"name\": \"Fix commit 266a5dc in ash-project/ash_lua\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}], \"dateAssigned\": \"2026-09-08T15:43:48.000Z\", \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"AshLua exposes Ash read actions to Lua scripts run through an eval action. A read call accepts an operation (list, min, max, first, sum, avg) that builds an ad-hoc Ash.Query.Aggregate over a named field and returns its raw value.\\n\\nAsh field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with %Ash.ForbiddenField{}), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A script could therefore read a field the calling actor\u0027s field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate instead of as a field. This includes fields that are public? true but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The prior hardening only enforced the exposed-field allow-list (field visibility), which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization.\\n\\nThe fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource\u0027s field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible.\\n\\nThis issue affects ash_lua: from 0.1.0 before 0.2.2.\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"\u003cp\u003eAshLua exposes Ash read actions to Lua scripts run through an \u003ccode\u003eeval\u003c/code\u003e action. A read call accepts an \u003ccode\u003eoperation\u003c/code\u003e (\u003ccode\u003elist\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003emin\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003emax\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003efirst\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003esum\u003c/code\u003e, \u003ccode\u003eavg\u003c/code\u003e) that builds an ad-hoc \u003ccode\u003eAsh.Query.Aggregate\u003c/code\u003e over a named field and returns its raw value.\u003c/p\u003e\\n\u003cp\u003eAsh field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with \u003ccode\u003e%Ash.ForbiddenField{}\u003c/code\u003e), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A script could therefore read a field the calling actor\u0027s field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate instead of as a field. This includes fields that are \u003ccode\u003epublic? true\u003c/code\u003e but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The prior hardening only enforced the exposed-field allow-list (field visibility), which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization.\u003c/p\u003e\\n\u003cp\u003eThe fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource\u0027s field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible.\u003c/p\u003e\\n\u003cp\u003eThis issue affects ash_lua: from 0.1.0 before 0.2.2.\u003c/p\u003e\", \"base64\": false}, {\"type\": \"text/markdown\", \"value\": \"AshLua exposes Ash read actions to Lua scripts run through an `eval` action. A read call accepts an `operation` (`list`, `min`, `max`, `first`, `sum`, `avg`) that builds an ad-hoc `Ash.Query.Aggregate` over a named field and returns its raw value.\\n\\nAsh field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with `%Ash.ForbiddenField{}`), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A script could therefore read a field the calling actor\u0027s field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate instead of as a field. This includes fields that are `public? true` but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The prior hardening only enforced the exposed-field allow-list (field visibility), which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization.\\n\\nThe fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource\u0027s field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible.\\n\\nThis issue affects ash_lua: from 0.1.0 before 0.2.2.\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-1220\", \"description\": \"CWE-1220 Insufficient Granularity of Access Control\"}]}], \"configurations\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"Reachable only when an application exposes an AshLua eval action over a resource whose field policies restrict a field that the calling actor can still name as an operation aggregate (for example a public? true but field-policy-protected attribute).\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"\u003cp\u003eReachable only when an application exposes an AshLua \u003ccode\u003eeval\u003c/code\u003e action over a resource whose field policies restrict a field that the calling actor can still name as an operation aggregate (for example a \u003ccode\u003epublic? true\u003c/code\u003e but field-policy-protected attribute).\u003c/p\u003e\", \"base64\": false}, {\"type\": \"text/markdown\", \"value\": \"Reachable only when an application exposes an AshLua `eval` action over a resource whose field policies restrict a field that the calling actor can still name as an operation aggregate (for example a `public? true` but field-policy-protected attribute).\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"cpeApplicability\": [{\"nodes\": [{\"negate\": false, \"cpeMatch\": [{\"criteria\": \"cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_lua:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\", \"vulnerable\": true, \"versionEndExcluding\": \"0.2.2\", \"versionStartIncluding\": \"0.1.0\"}], \"operator\": \"OR\"}], \"operator\": \"AND\"}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\", \"shortName\": \"EEF\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-09-08T16:42:20.908Z\"}}}",
"cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2026-78216\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2026-09-08T17:27:08.856Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2026-08-31T00:45:02.446Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\", \"datePublished\": \"2026-09-08T16:42:20.908Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"EEF\"}",
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Loading…
Loading…