CVE-2026-82752
CVE-2026-82752 — Ash string length constraints count graphemes, so a combining-mark string of any size passes max_length
Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input vulnerability in ash-project ash allows an attacker to store a value of arbitrary size in an attribute whose length constraint should bound it. Ash measures string length with Elixir's String.length/1, which counts Unicode graphemes, in the max_length and min_length constraints of Ash.Type.String (apply_constraints/2 in lib/ash/type/string.ex), in Ash.Resource.Validation.StringLength, and in the string_length expression function. A grapheme carries an unbounded number of combining marks, so a base character followed by a million combining acute accents is one grapheme and megabytes of data, and satisfies max_length: 2. Where the data layer imposes no independent limit (ETS, Mnesia, or a Postgres text column) the whole value is persisted, so an attacker can write an entire request body into an attribute declared with a small maximum and…
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, EEF
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Unreported
no source claims exploitation
EPSS
0%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
5.9
MEDIUM
CISA SSVC assessment
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Exploitation
PoC
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
Vendors (1)
Products (1)
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.9 | CVSS 4.0 | MEDIUM | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-1284
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.
- Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /1, /2, /ash/type/string.ex).
References
5 on the record
- github.com/ash-project/ash/security/advisories/GHSA-cwjv-574p-59f6
vendor-advisory, related
- cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-82752.html
related
- osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-82752
related
- github.com/ash-project/ash/commit/a64cab49b8886503e6b7c7b211d83c475aac48ca
patch
- github.com/ash-project/ash/commit/cdbf4c4da6bda5f6f139078f01a64320b595216d
patch
Elsewhere on this site
- ash projectevery CVE for this vendor
- CWE-1284other pages naming this weakness
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.