Export limit exceeded: 385792 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (385792 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-82725 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash Phoenix | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82730 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash Typescript | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash_typescript allows an unauthorized RPC caller to read attribute values that Ash field policies denied. When a field policy denies an attribute, Ash substitutes %Ash.ForbiddenField{}, which retains the real value in original_value because embedded resources must remain writable, and hides it from Inspect rather than removing it. AshTypescript.Rpc.ResultProcessor strips these markers to nil on its template-driven paths, but normalize_primitive/1 in lib/ash_typescript/rpc/result_processor.ex had no such clause, so a marker fell through to the generic struct branch which calls Map.from_struct/1 and serializes every key, original_value included. The denied value is returned to the caller inside the marker that represents its own denial. The simplest trigger is an action returning an embedded resource as a map, which routes through normalize_resource_struct/2 with an empty template. normalize_value_for_json/1 is a public, unguarded entry point to the same path. This issue affects ash_typescript: from 0.11.0 before 0.18.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82731 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash Typescript | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82732 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash Typescript | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82733 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash Typescript | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82734 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input vulnerability in ash-project ash allows an attacker to submit a non-finite decimal value that bypasses numeric bounds constraints or fails later operations on the value. Ash.Type.Decimal cast input through Ecto's decimal cast in cast_input/2 and cast_stored/2 (lib/ash/type/decimal.ex) without checking that the resulting value is finite. Elixir's Decimal represents Infinity and NaN as valid structs, so a value such as "Infinity" or "NaN" passed casting and was persisted. Because NaN compares as false against every bound, min and max constraints do not reject it, and the stored special value later raises when used in Decimal arithmetic or is refused by the data layer, failing subsequent requests. The fix rejects any non-finite Decimal during casting. This issue affects ash: from 1.28.0 before 3.32.2. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82741 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82744 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82745 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79686 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Protection Mechanism Failure vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to bypass access restrictions and gain escalated privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79683 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Protection Mechanism Failure vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to write attacker-controlled content to arbitrary filesystem paths. | ||||
| CVE-2026-58575 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains an Authentication Bypass by Spoofing vulnerability. An authenticated attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability to escalate privileges to Administrator. | ||||
| CVE-2026-58572 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Code Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code with root privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-58571 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains an OS Command Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-58569 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains an Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code with root privileges.. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79684 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Protection Mechanism Failure vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to bypass access restrictions and gain escalated privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79685 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 6.5 Medium |
| Dell PowerStore contains an Argument Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to gain unauthorized access to sensitive sensitive system information. | ||||
| CVE-2026-18931 | 2026-09-01 | 9.1 Critical | ||
| Use of Hard-coded Credentials vulnerability in TMT Machine Industry and Trade Ltd. Co. Talassoft Industrial Management Software allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data. This issue affects Talassoft Industrial Management Software: from V.4 before V.16. | ||||
| CVE-2026-18780 | 2026-09-01 | 7.1 High | ||
| Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in TMT Machine Industry and Trade Ltd. Co. Talassoft Industrial Management Software allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Talassoft Industrial Management Software: from V.4 before V.16. | ||||
| CVE-2026-18771 | 2026-09-01 | 7.5 High | ||
| Missing authentication for critical function vulnerability in TMT Machine Industry and Trade Ltd. Co. Talassoft Industrial Management Software allows Authentication Bypass. This issue affects Talassoft Industrial Management Software: from V4 before V.16. | ||||