Most recent entries from all

bdu:2024-10824

EUVD-2026-197246

fkie_cve-2024-49756

AshPostgres is the PostgreSQL data layer for Ash Framework. Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.4.10, in certain very specific situations, it was possible for the policies of an update action to be skipped. This occurred only on "empty" update actions (no changing fields), and would allow their hooks (side effects) to be performed when they should not have been. Note that this does not allow reading new data that the user should not have had access to, only triggering a side effect a user should not have been able to trigger.

To be vulnerable, an affected user must have an update action that is on a resource with no attributes containing an "update default" (updated_at timestamp, for example); can be performed atomically; does not have `require_atomic? false`; has at least one authorizer (typically `Ash.Policy.Authorizer`); and has at least one `change` (on the resource's `changes` block or in the action itself). This is where the side-effects would be performed when they should not have been.

This problem has been patched in `2.4.10` of `ash_postgres`. Several workarounds are available. Potentially affected users may determine that none of their actions are vulnerable using a script the maintainers provide in the GitHub Security Advisory, add `require_atomic? false` to any potentially affected update action, replace any usage of `Ash.update` with `Ash.bulk_update` for an affected action, and/or add an update timestamp to their action.

GHSA-hf59-7rwq-785m — In AshPostgres, empty, atomic, non-bulk actions, policy bypass for side-effects vulnerability.

Affected: Hex: ash_postgres

### Impact _What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_

In certain *very specific* situations, it was possible for the policies of an update action to be skipped. This occurred only on "empty" update actions (no changing fields), and would allow their hooks (side effects) to be performed when they should not have been. Note that this does not allow reading new data that the user should not have had access to, only triggering a side effect a user should not have been able to trigger.

You must have an update action that:

- Is on a resource with no attributes containing an "update default" (updated_at timestamp, for example) - can be performed atomically. - Does *not* have `require_atomic? false` - Has at least one authorizer (typically `Ash.Policy.Authorizer`) - Has at least one `change` (on the resource's `changes` block or in the action itself) This is where the side-effects would be performed when they should not have been.

---

- Is there ever a place where you call this action manually, using `Ash.update`. Note that AshGraphql and AshJsonApi action calls are *not* affected as they use `Ash.bulk_update`. - If so, is there ever a case where you call the action with zero inputs, and have it produce zero changing fields. - If so, could it then produce a side effect. This means you'd have an after_action hook that calls some other resource. - If so, does that side effect bypass another resource's policies, i.e using `authorize?: false`, or not providing…