Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information vulnerability in ash-project ash_typescript allows an unauthenticated attacker to read internal Elixir terms from an RPC error response by provoking an error the error builder has no dedicated clause for.
AshTypescript.Rpc.ErrorBuilder.build_error_response/1 in lib/ash_typescript/rpc/error_builder.ex renders a pipeline error term that matches no specific clause with inspect/1 and places the result in details.error of the client-facing error. Ash exceptions take a separate path in AshTypescript.Rpc.Errors where unhandled cases are redacted behind an errorId, but these fallbacks have no redaction, so whatever the term carries reaches the HTTP or channel response. Two request paths hand it such terms: a struct-typed action argument with an invalid nested value, where cast_map_to_struct/2 in lib/ash_typescript/rpc/input_formatter.ex throws the raw Ash.Type cast error into the builder, and field selection on a generic action that returns a primitive, where format_field_type/1 inspects the full Ash.Info.Manifest.Type struct into vars.returnType. Resource module names in vars.resource are not treated as sensitive and are out of scope.
This issue affects ash_typescript: from 0.1.0 before 0.19.1.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it