Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.39% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-82367High confidence
Re-entrant synchronous publish in AshGraphql subscription batcher delivers one subscriber's records to another's topic
ash-project · ash graphql
2.3LowCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Patch availableLow technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityLow→Operational priority:Medium, raised one band.upgradedsince 30 Aug 2026
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs ash-project ash graphql and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Low technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session vulnerability in ash-project ash_graphql can deliver one subscription's resolved records to a different subscriber's topic. AshGraphql.Subscription.Batcher.do_send/5 reads the resolved batch from the process dictionary via Process.get(:batch_resolved) and then unconditionally deletes it. That is sound only inside a task the library owns. On the :backpressure_sync and :noproc fallbacks do_send/5 runs inline in the publishing caller's process, so if a resolver inside an outer do_send/5 triggers another synchronous Ash notification, the inner call finds the outer run's value still under :batch_resolved, adopts it as its own result, and publishes it to the inner topic, a different subscription document with a different actor and tenant. It then deletes the key, so the outer run publishes nothing. The key is not namespaced by run, so records cannot be told apart. The fix saves, clears, and restores :batch_resolved around each run. This issue affects ash_graphql: from 1.4.0 before 1.11.0.
What
Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session vulnerability in ash-project ash_graphql can deliver one subscription's resolved records to a different subscriber's topic. AshGraphql.Subscription.Batcher.do_send/5 reads the resolved batch from the process dictionary via Process.get(:batch_resolved) and then unconditionally deletes it. That is sound only inside a task the library owns. On the :backpressure_sync and :noproc fallbacks do_send/5 runs inline in the publishing caller's process, so if a resolver inside an outer do_send/5 triggers another synchronous Ash notification, the inner call finds the outer run's value still under :batch_resolved, adopts it as its own result, and publishes it to the inner topic, a different subscription document with a different actor and tenant. It then deletes the key, so the outer run publishes nothing. The key is not namespaced by run, so records cannot be told apart. The fix saves, clears, and restores :batch_resolved around each run. This issue affects ash_graphql: from 1.4.0 before 1.11.0.
Why
The product does not sufficiently enforce boundaries between the states of different sessions, causing data to be provided to, or used by, the wrong session.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session vulnerability in ash-project ash_graphql can deliver one subscription's resolved records to a different subscriber's topic. AshGraphql.Subscription.Batcher.do_send/5 reads the resolved batch from the process dictionary via Process.get(:batch_resolved) and then unconditionally deletes it. That is sound only inside a task the library owns. On the :backpressure_sync and :noproc fallbacks do_send/5 runs inline in the publishing caller's process, so if a resolver inside an outer do_send/5 triggers another synchronous Ash notification, the inner call finds the outer run's value still under :batch_resolved, adopts it as its own result, and publishes it to the inner topic, a different subscription document with a different actor and tenant. It then deletes the key, so the outer run publishes nothing. The key is not namespaced by run, so records cannot be told apart. The fix saves, clears, and restores :batch_resolved around each run. This issue affects ash_graphql: from 1.4.0 before 1.11.0.
Why
The product does not sufficiently enforce boundaries between the states of different sessions, causing data to be provided to, or used by, the wrong session.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-488 ↗
CWE-488: Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session. The product does not sufficiently enforce boundaries between the states of different sessions, causing data to be provided to, or used by, the wrong session.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCLowVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.VINoneVulnerable-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 30 Aug 2026 · Last source change 1 Sept 2026, 15:37 UTC · CWE-488 · Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-31
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-68283
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-68283 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-68283"}
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- 1.4.0 < 1.11.0; 3cb2c9870d050c7c4bba6c211aaed97d732f7e81 < b798ef5288664a0261990b19765558f168b718fb · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- ash graphql: 1.4.0 < 1.11.0, 3cb2c9870d050c7c4bba6c211aaed97d732f7e81 < b798ef5288664a0261990b19765558f168b718fb · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Public exploit evidencePublic exploit evidence changed from No public exploit to Public exploit reference.CVE.org ↗
- Before
- No public exploit
- After
- Public exploit reference
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.