CVE Intelligence
High Denial of service

CVE-2026-94201 — Filtering an :atom attribute with unsafe_to_atom? can exhaust the BEAM atom table in Ash

Ash stores :atom-typed attributes as strings and compares them as strings. When such an attribute is referenced in a filter, the comparison value is coerced through Ash.Type.Atom. Because the type defined no coerce/2 callback, coercion fell back to the default (cast_input/2), which calls String.to_atom/1 when the attribute is configured with the unsafe_to_atom?: true constraint. Filtering such an attribute with attacker-controlled strings therefore interned a new, permanent atom for every distinct value. Atoms are never garbage collected and the BEAM caps the atom table, so an actor who can supply filter values for a public, filterable :atom attribute declared with unsafe_to_atom?: true can exhaust the atom table and crash the node (denial of service). AshPaperTrail is a notable example: its version resources expose a public, filterable version_action_name atom attribute with unsafe_to_atom?: true by default. The fix adds a coerce/2 to Ash.Type.Atom that never interns atoms — a comparison value is left as a string, since the type is stored and compared as a string. Setting the attribute from action input (cast_input/2, which still honors unsafe_to_atom?) is unchanged. This issue affects ash: from 3.5.1 before 3.34.3.

Published Oct 5, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 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 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+3
  • Technical severity (high)+6

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
0.3%
ahead of 21% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Ash-project
Ash
CVSS base
8.2
High · 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
None
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).
  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 (denial of service), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Ash-project Ash ≥ 3.5.1 and < 3.34.3≥ 2970ba3bd5d36d6ad04c731ac87385375d457147 and < 5282f3f513053628cdd1bf2236ea22d975d934d4 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)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
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
8.2 CVSS 4.0 High — — 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.2 CVSS 4.0 High — — 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:N/VA:H/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-770 · Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.30%

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).
  • Track CPU/memory spikes and availability drops correlated with request patterns.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSresource metrics

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · ash-project/ash
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 8.2
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Oct 5, 2026 · EEF

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Ash-project
every CVE for this vendor
Denial of service
same class
CWE-770
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-101028 Ash.count, Ash.exists and Ash.aggregate skip related resources' read policies in filters and sorts 6d
  • CVE-2026-86338 Ash field policies do not filter-nil forbidden calculations and aggregates, enabling an information-disclosure oracle 29d
  • CVE-2026-82752 Ash string length constraints count graphemes, so a combining-mark string of any size passes max_length Sep 5, 2026
  • CVE-2026-82747 Ash.Policy.Authorizer returns records denied by a runtime read policy to any actor Sep 1, 2026
  • CVE-2026-82748 Ash.Actions.Aggregate authorizes an aggregate under one action but computes it under another Sep 1, 2026
  • CVE-2026-82749 Ash relationship parent(...) filter degrades to an IS NULL match when the parent field is unresolved, leaking scoped records 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-2026-94201 is "Filtering an :atom attribute with unsafe_to_atom? can exhaust the BEAM atom table in Ash", rated High. It affects Ash (Ash-project); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 8.2 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.30% 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.