Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.20% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-93477High confidence
Private action arguments can be set by user input on the bulk destroy and bulk update paths in Ash
ash-project · ash
5.9MediumCVSS 4.0
Scheduled
Patch availableMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs ash-project ash 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.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes vulnerability in ash-project ash allows a user to set the value of a private action argument on the bulk destroy and bulk update paths. Action arguments declared with public?: false are meant to be set only by trusted server-side code (for example via Ash.Changeset.set_private_argument/3) and must not be settable from end-user input. CVE-2026-55736 fixed the non-bulk changeset path to strip private arguments from user-supplied parameter maps, but the bulk destroy and bulk update paths were not covered. Ash.Actions.Destroy.Bulk.base_changeset/5 and Ash.Actions.Update.Bulk.base_changeset/5 match every key in the caller-supplied parameter map against all of the action's arguments with no public? check, then apply the matches to the base changeset. A caller who can submit parameters to a bulk destroy or bulk update action (for example through AshJsonApi, AshGraphql, or a controller that forwards request parameters to Ash.bulk_destroy/4 or Ash.bulk_update/4) can therefore set any private argument of that action, including one referenced by an arg(...) template in the action's changes or validations. Depending on how the application uses the argument (for example an acting_user_id driving authorization or record ownership, or audit metadata), this can lead to an integrity violation or privilege escalation. The fix requires public? in the argument matching on both bulk paths; private arguments remain settable server-side via the :private_arguments option. This issue affects ash: from 2.17.15 before 3.33.11.
What
Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes vulnerability in ash-project ash allows a user to set the value of a private action argument on the bulk destroy and bulk update paths. Action arguments declared with public?: false are meant to be set only by trusted server-side code (for example via Ash.Changeset.set_private_argument/3) and must not be settable from end-user input. CVE-2026-55736 fixed the non-bulk changeset path to strip private arguments from user-supplied parameter maps, but the bulk destroy and bulk update paths were not covered. Ash.Actions.Destroy.Bulk.base_changeset/5 and Ash.Actions.Update.Bulk.base_changeset/5 match every key in the caller-supplied parameter map against all of the action's arguments with no public? check, then apply the matches to the base changeset. A caller who can submit parameters to a bulk destroy or bulk update action (for example through AshJsonApi, AshGraphql, or a controller that forwards request parameters to Ash.bulk_destroy/4 or Ash.bulk_update/4) can therefore set any private argument of that action, including one referenced by an arg(...) template in the action's changes or validations. Depending on how the application uses the argument (for example an acting_user_id driving authorization or record ownership, or audit metadata), this can lead to an integrity violation or privilege escalation. The fix requires public? in the argument matching on both bulk paths; private arguments remain settable server-side via the :private_arguments option. This issue affects ash: from 2.17.15 before 3.33.11.
Why
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may gain additional privileges.
What
Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes vulnerability in ash-project ash allows a user to set the value of a private action argument on the bulk destroy and bulk update paths. Action arguments declared with public?: false are meant to be set only by trusted server-side code (for example via Ash.Changeset.set_private_argument/3) and must not be settable from end-user input. CVE-2026-55736 fixed the non-bulk changeset path to strip private arguments from user-supplied parameter maps, but the bulk destroy and bulk update paths were not covered. Ash.Actions.Destroy.Bulk.base_changeset/5 and Ash.Actions.Update.Bulk.base_changeset/5 match every key in the caller-supplied parameter map against all of the action's arguments with no public? check, then apply the matches to the base changeset. A caller who can submit parameters to a bulk destroy or bulk update action (for example through AshJsonApi, AshGraphql, or a controller that forwards request parameters to Ash.bulk_destroy/4 or Ash.bulk_update/4) can therefore set any private argument of that action, including one referenced by an arg(...) template in the action's changes or validations. Depending on how the application uses the argument (for example an acting_user_id driving authorization or record ownership, or audit metadata), this can lead to an integrity violation or privilege escalation. The fix requires public? in the argument matching on both bulk paths; private arguments remain settable server-side via the :private_arguments option. This issue affects ash: from 2.17.15 before 3.33.11.
Why
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may gain additional privileges.
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 None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- local access → Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes → gain additional privileges
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-915 ↗
CWE-915: Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes. The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCNoneVulnerable-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.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
- The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
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. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 25 Sept 2026 · Last source change 25 Sept 2026, 13:26 UTC · CWE-915 · Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-25
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-86550
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-2026-86550 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-86550"}
- 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.