CVE Intelligence
Medium Input validation

CVE-2026-82732 — Declared argument constraints not enforced on AshTypescript typed controller routes

Improper Input Validation vulnerability in ash-project ash_typescript allows a remote attacker to submit argument values outside a declared allowlist or bound on typed-controller routes. AshTypescript.TypedController.RequestHandler in lib/ash_typescript/typed_controller/request_handler.ex calls Ash.Type.cast_input/3 and treats an {:ok, cast} result as fully validated. In Ash these are separate steps: cast_input/3 only coerces the term, while every constraint declared on the argument is applied by Ash.Type.apply_constraints/3, which this path never calls. Constraints such as one_of, max_length, min and max, and match are therefore inert, so a value outside a declared allowlist is accepted and passed to the route handler. Codegen renders the same constraints into the generated TypeScript types, so an allowlist appears enforced to a TypeScript caller while any other HTTP client ignores it. Empty-string to nil normalization also lives in apply_constraints, so the allow_nil?: false check accepts "" for a required argument. Where a constraint gates a role, a status, or a sort direction, this becomes a privilege or state-machine bypass. This issue affects ash_typescript: from 0.15.0 before 0.18.0.

Published Sep 1, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: EEF

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.7% (30-day exploitation probability)+8
  • Technical severity (medium)+3
  • CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.68%
ahead of 51% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Ash-project
Ash Typescript
CVSS base
6.3
Medium · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
Proof of concept
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Ash-project Ash Typescript).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (input validation), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Ash-project Ash Typescript ≥ 0.15.0 and < 0.18.0≥ 546a15e1a2d7dbf1df2d5a6ee4404bc3da87852e and < 21ab6f1229a4dccdb56bc37ed437d9672a0c4a4e Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
X
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent)
None
Integrity (subsequent)
None
Availability (subsequent)
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
6.3 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.3 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — EEF via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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 (score shown at the top: 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · ash-project/ash typescript
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 6.3
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Sep 1, 2026 · EEF

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Ash-project
every CVE for this vendor
Input validation
same class
CWE-20
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-105283 Internal error terms inspected into AshTypescript RPC error responses 4d
  • CVE-2026-82733 Route handler return value echoed into AshTypescript error response Sep 1, 2026
  • CVE-2026-82730 Authorization-redacted field values disclosed through AshTypescript result normalization Sep 1, 2026
  • CVE-2026-82731 Unescaped path parameters in AshTypescript generated TypeScript client allow request redirection Sep 1, 2026
  • CVE-2026-74837 Unbounded atom creation from client-supplied RPC field names in AshTypescript field formatter Sep 1, 2026
  • CVE-2026-77856 Unbounded atom creation from typed struct field names in AshTypescript field selector Sep 1, 2026

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 fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • 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.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-82732 is "Declared argument constraints not enforced on AshTypescript typed controller routes", rated Medium. It affects Ash Typescript (Ash-project); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.3 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.68% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.