CVE-2026-78699 (GCVE-0-2026-78699)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2026-08-30 15:13
Modified
2026-08-30 15:13
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
EPSS score ?
CWE
- CWE-252 - Unchecked Return Value
Summary
Unchecked Return Value vulnerability in ash-project ash_postgres allows a user who can drive a tenant rename to a name that collides with an existing tenant's schema to have their tenant record repointed at that other tenant's live schema, gaining access to its data.
AshPostgres.MultiTenancy.rename_tenant/3 issues the ALTER SCHEMA ... RENAME TO ... with the non-raising Ecto.Adapters.SQL.query/2, discards its {:ok, _} | {:error, _} result, and unconditionally returns :ok. PostgreSQL rejects the rename when the target schema already exists (and on insufficient privilege or lock timeout), but that failure never reaches the caller. The calling manage_tenant update action therefore sees success and commits the tenant row with the new name, which is the schema of a different existing tenant, so subsequent reads and writes for that tenant run against the other tenant's data.
This issue affects ash_postgres: from 0.25.0 before 2.13.0.
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ash-project | ash_postgres |
Version: 0.25.0 ≤ cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_postgres:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
|||||||
|
|||||||||
{
"containers": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://repo.hex.pm",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_postgres:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.AshPostgres.MultiTenancy\u0027"
],
"packageName": "ash_postgres",
"packageURL": "pkg:hex/ash_postgres",
"product": "ash_postgres",
"programFiles": [
"lib/multitenancy.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.AshPostgres.MultiTenancy\u0027:rename_tenant/3"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/ash-project/ash_postgres",
"vendor": "ash-project",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "2.13.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0.25.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"collectionURL": "https://github.com",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_postgres:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.AshPostgres.MultiTenancy\u0027"
],
"packageName": "ash-project/ash_postgres",
"packageURL": "pkg:github/ash-project/ash_postgres",
"product": "ash_postgres",
"programFiles": [
"lib/multitenancy.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.AshPostgres.MultiTenancy\u0027:rename_tenant/3"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/ash-project/ash_postgres",
"vendor": "ash-project",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "8544ab15fe45784553c2d2da8ee1a388eee0174b",
"status": "affected",
"version": "03510dae24020e302558ef947be7ea874a9ce756",
"versionType": "git"
}
]
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eAn application must run ash_postgres schema-based multitenancy with a user-driven tenant rename (for example a \u003ccode\u003emanage_tenant\u003c/code\u003e update on an editable org slug or subdomain), letting a user choose a new tenant name that collides with an existing tenant\u0027s schema.\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "An application must run ash_postgres schema-based multitenancy with a user-driven tenant rename (for example a `manage_tenant` update on an editable org slug or subdomain), letting a user choose a new tenant name that collides with an existing tenant\u0027s schema."
}
],
"value": "An application must run ash_postgres schema-based multitenancy with a user-driven tenant rename (for example a manage_tenant update on an editable org slug or subdomain), letting a user choose a new tenant name that collides with an existing tenant\u0027s schema."
}
],
"cpeApplicability": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_postgres:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "2.13.0",
"versionStartIncluding": "0.25.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
],
"operator": "AND"
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Peter Ullrich"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Peter Ullrich"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Zach Daniel / Ash Project"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Jonatan M\u00e4nnchen / EEF"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eUnchecked Return Value vulnerability in ash-project ash_postgres allows a user who can drive a tenant rename to a name that collides with an existing tenant\u0027s schema to have their tenant record repointed at that other tenant\u0027s live schema, gaining access to its data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ccode\u003eAshPostgres.MultiTenancy.rename_tenant/3\u003c/code\u003e issues the \u003ccode\u003eALTER SCHEMA ... RENAME TO ...\u003c/code\u003e with the non-raising \u003ccode\u003eEcto.Adapters.SQL.query/2\u003c/code\u003e, discards its \u003ccode\u003e{:ok, _} | {:error, _}\u003c/code\u003e result, and unconditionally returns \u003ccode\u003e:ok\u003c/code\u003e. PostgreSQL rejects the rename when the target schema already exists (and on insufficient privilege or lock timeout), but that failure never reaches the caller. The calling \u003ccode\u003emanage_tenant\u003c/code\u003e update action therefore sees success and commits the tenant row with the new name, which is the schema of a different existing tenant, so subsequent reads and writes for that tenant run against the other tenant\u0027s data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis issue affects ash_postgres: from 0.25.0 before 2.13.0.\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "Unchecked Return Value vulnerability in ash-project ash_postgres allows a user who can drive a tenant rename to a name that collides with an existing tenant\u0027s schema to have their tenant record repointed at that other tenant\u0027s live schema, gaining access to its data.\n\n`AshPostgres.MultiTenancy.rename_tenant/3` issues the `ALTER SCHEMA ... RENAME TO ...` with the non-raising `Ecto.Adapters.SQL.query/2`, discards its `{:ok, _} | {:error, _}` result, and unconditionally returns `:ok`. PostgreSQL rejects the rename when the target schema already exists (and on insufficient privilege or lock timeout), but that failure never reaches the caller. The calling `manage_tenant` update action therefore sees success and commits the tenant row with the new name, which is the schema of a different existing tenant, so subsequent reads and writes for that tenant run against the other tenant\u0027s data.\n\nThis issue affects ash_postgres: from 0.25.0 before 2.13.0."
}
],
"value": "Unchecked Return Value vulnerability in ash-project ash_postgres allows a user who can drive a tenant rename to a name that collides with an existing tenant\u0027s schema to have their tenant record repointed at that other tenant\u0027s live schema, gaining access to its data.\n\nAshPostgres.MultiTenancy.rename_tenant/3 issues the ALTER SCHEMA ... RENAME TO ... with the non-raising Ecto.Adapters.SQL.query/2, discards its {:ok, _} | {:error, _} result, and unconditionally returns :ok. PostgreSQL rejects the rename when the target schema already exists (and on insufficient privilege or lock timeout), but that failure never reaches the caller. The calling manage_tenant update action therefore sees success and commits the tenant row with the new name, which is the schema of a different existing tenant, so subsequent reads and writes for that tenant run against the other tenant\u0027s data.\n\nThis issue affects ash_postgres: from 0.25.0 before 2.13.0."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-1",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-1 Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "LOCAL",
"baseScore": 7.2,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-252",
"description": "CWE-252 Unchecked Return Value",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-30T15:13:23.875Z",
"orgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"shortName": "EEF"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory",
"related"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ash-project/ash_postgres/security/advisories/GHSA-6fqq-j9c4-5766"
},
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-78699.html"
},
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-78699"
},
{
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ash-project/ash_postgres/commit/8544ab15fe45784553c2d2da8ee1a388eee0174b"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "rename_tenant returns :ok on a failed rename, enabling cross-tenant access in AshPostgres"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"assignerShortName": "EEF",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-78699",
"datePublished": "2026-08-30T15:13:23.875Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-08-30T06:00:01.261Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-30T15:13:23.875Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…