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": "2026-11-13",
"epss": "0.00427",
"percentile": "0.37509"
},
"nvd": {
"cve": {
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"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"
}
]
}
],
"source": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db"
}
],
"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."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-78216",
"lastModified": "2026-09-08T19:29:09.680",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV40": [
{
"cvssData": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"baseScore": 6.0,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"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/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",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"source": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2026-78216",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "none"
},
{
"automatable": "no"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-08T17:26:34.675766Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2026-09-08T17:18:30.653",
"references": [
{
"source": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"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"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"vulnStatus": "Deferred",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-1220"
}
],
"source": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
},
"vulnrichment": {
"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": "2026-09-08T17:26:42.706Z",
"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"
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
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.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
Loading…
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.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
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.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.