MediumCVE-2026-78230

    AshAi aggregate tool can read field-policy-protected fields (CVE-2026-78230)

    Published Last modified Sources: CVE.org, OSV

    Share

    What is affected, what to do

    AshAi exposes Ash read actions to language-model tool calls. The read tool accepts an aggregate result type (min, max, sum, avg) that builds an ad-hoc Ash.Query.Aggregate over a named field and returns its raw value.

    Update Ash-project Ash AI to version 1.0.3.

    Affected
    • Ash-project Ash AI lt 0.1.0..1.0.3
    Fixed in
    • Ash-project Ash AI 1.0.3

    Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability

    Metrics

    6.0

    Priority

    XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.

    Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v4

    6.0

    CVSS v4

    Severity Medium on the scale from 0 to 10.

    Source: CVE.org, OSV

    0.4 %

    EPSS score

    Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.

    Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 37.2

    Show all metrics
    Severity
    Medium
    Priority (0–325)

    The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?

    Read in glossary
    66.01 Methodology
    Exploit maturity

    An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.

    Read in glossary
    no public PoC known
    XIEM Effective CVSS

    XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.

    Read in glossary
    6.0 Methodology
    CVSS v4

    CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.

    Read in glossary
    6.0
    EPSS score

    The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.

    Read in glossary
    0.4 %
    Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
    EPSS percentile

    The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.

    Read in glossary
    37.2
    High — this CVE ranks above the median of all CVEs scored today (rank ≥ 36%).
    KEV status

    The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.

    Read in glossary
    —
    Published
    CISA assessment (SSVC)
    Exploitation: none known · not automatable · Technical impact: partial
    Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 8 September 2026
    CWE

    CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.

    Read in glossary
    CWE-1220

    Detection rules

    No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.

    Classification under NIS2 and CRA

    Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.

    NIS2

    NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.

    Read in glossary
    Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
    CRA

    The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.

    Read in glossary
    From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
    ISO/IEC 27001

    ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.

    Read in glossary
    Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.

    Description

    AshAi exposes Ash read actions to language-model tool calls. The read tool accepts an aggregate result type (min, max, 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 tool caller could therefore read a field the calling actor's field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate; min/max in particular return an actual field value. This includes fields that are public? true but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The tool's existing check only required the field to be public, 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_ai: from 0.1.0 before 1.0.3.

    Source: cvelistv5, NVD (NIST), OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

    Affected products

    The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.

    Affected products
    Affected versionsFixed in
    ash-projectash_ai
    • 0.1.0 – < 1.0.3
    • 1.0.3
    hexash_ai
    • 0.2.14
    • 0.5.0
    • 0.2.10
    • 0.2.7
    • 0.2.3
    • 0.2.0
    • 0.2.6
    • 1.0.1
    • 0.6.1
    • 0.2.9
    • 0.7.2
    • 0.1.10
    • 0.7.0
    • 0.7.1
    • 0.1.3
    • 0.2.1
    • 0.7.3
    • 0.2.4
    • 0.1.6
    • 0.2.2
    • 0.1.1
    • 1.0.2
    • 0.2.13
    • 1.0.0
    • 0.4.0
    • 0.1.5
    • 0.2.12
    • 0.2.5
    • 0.2.11
    • 0.1.4
    • 0.1.7
    • 0.1.11
    • 0.8.0
    • 0.1.0
    • 0.8.1
    • 0.1.9
    • 0.6.0
    • 0.3.0
    • 0.1.8
    • 0.8.2
    • 0.2.8
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —
    • —

    Vendors and products

    Weakness classes (CWE)

    • CWE-1220Insufficient Granularity of Access Control

      Base

      The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system from untrusted agents. However, implemented access controls lack required granularity, which renders the control policy too broad because it allows accesses from unauthorized agents to the security-sensitive assets.

      Entry at MITRE CWE-1220

    References & sources

    Changes to this CVE

    Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).

    1. Record modifiedCISA ADP

      CISA assessment (SSVC): exploitation: none known, automatable: no

      Show the original change
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      SSVC assessmentadded
      —
      {"id":"CVE-2026-78230","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"none"},{"automatable":"no"},{"technicalImpact":"partial"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-09-08T17:33:49.017554Z"}

      Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

    2. ReceivedEEF

      CVSS V4.0: AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

      Weakness type: CWE-1220

      Description added or changed

      Show 9 original changes
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      Descriptionadded
      —
      AshAi exposes Ash read actions to language-model tool calls. The read tool accepts an aggregate result type (min, max, 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 tool caller could therefore read a field the calling actor's field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate; min/max in particular return an actual field value. This includes fields that are public? true but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The tool's existing check only required the field to be public, 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_ai: from 0.1.0 before 1.0.3.
      CVSSadded
      —
      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
      Weakness type (CWE)added
      —
      CWE-1220
      Affected versions (publisher)added
      —
      New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/78xxx/CVE-2026-78230.json">CVE-2026-78230</a>
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-78230.html
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://github.com/ash-project/ash_ai/commit/2ba234b50946a3b8116190c8467f9f4dfa5edce7
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://github.com/ash-project/ash_ai/commit/9c02de581625c342c9870a672830bff28c1d701e
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://github.com/ash-project/ash_ai/security/advisories/GHSA-v5rw-36x5-r5vx
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-78230

      Source identifier: 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db

    Embed badge

    Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.

    Badge preview for CVE-2026-78230
    <a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-78230"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-78230.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-78230 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>