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": "2026-09-29",
"epss": "0.00427",
"percentile": "0.3453"
},
"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…
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…
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.
Loading…