Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
💧
💧 Hex
Not in CISA KEV
HIGH severity

GHSA-pcxq-fjp3-r752 ash

HIGHFix: ash-project/ash@8b83efa

GHSA-pcxq-fjp3-r752 is a high-severity (CVSS 8.1) CWE-863 vulnerability in ash. A fix is available for ash — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Ash has authorization bypass when bypass policy condition evaluates to true

Also known asCVE-2025-48044EEF-CVE-2025-48044
Published
Oct 17, 2025
Updated
Jul 8, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Sep 19, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

  • CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
  • A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
  • CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-pcxq-fjp3-r752.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.7%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs50th percentile — riskier than 50% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

How urgent is this, really

GHSA-pcxq-fjp3-r752 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 377,166 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected
💧ash

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Hex packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

Bypass policies incorrectly authorize requests when their condition evaluates to true but their authorization checks fail and no other policies apply.

Impact

Resources with bypass policies can be accessed without proper authorization when:

  • Bypass condition evaluates to true
  • Bypass authorization checks fail
  • Other policies exist but their conditions don't match

Details

Vulnerable code in: lib/ash/policy/policy.ex:69

{%{bypass?: true}, cond_expr, complete_expr}, {one_condition_matches, all_policies_match} ->
  {
    b(cond_expr or one_condition_matches),  # <- Bug: uses condition only
    b(complete_expr or all_policies_match)
  }

The final authorization decision is: one_condition_matches AND all_policies_match

When a bypass condition is true but bypass policies fail, and subsequent policies have non-matching conditions:

  1. one_condition_matches = cond_expr (bypass condition) = true (bug - should check if bypass actually authorizes)
  2. all_policies_match = (complete_expr OR NOT cond_expr) for each policy
    • For non-matching policies: (false OR NOT false) = true (policies don't apply)
  3. Final: true AND true = true (incorrectly authorized)

The bypass condition alone satisfies "at least one policy applies" even though the bypass fails to authorize.

Fix

Replace cond_expr with complete_expr on line 69:

{%{bypass?: true}, _cond_expr, complete_expr}, {one_condition_matches, all_policies_match} ->
  {
    b(complete_expr or one_condition_matches),  # <- Fixed
    b(complete_expr or all_policies_match)
  }

Line 52 should also be updated for consistency (though it's only triggered when bypass is the last policy, making it coincidentally safe in practice):

{%{bypass?: true}, _cond_expr, complete_expr}, {one_condition_matches, true} ->
  {
    b(complete_expr or one_condition_matches),  # <- For consistency
    complete_expr
  }

PoC

policies do
  bypass always() do
    authorize_if actor_attribute_equals(:is_admin, true)
  end

  policy action_type(:read) do
    authorize_if always()
  end
end

Non-admin user can perform create actions (should be denied).

Test demonstrating the bug:

test "bypass policy bug" do
  policies = [
    %Ash.Policy.Policy{
      bypass?: true,
      condition: [{Ash.Policy.Check.Static, result: true}],  # condition = true
      policies: [
        %Ash.Policy.Check{
          type: :authorize_if,
          check: {Ash.Policy.Check.Static, result: false},  # policies = false
          check_module: Ash.Policy.Check.Static,
          check_opts: [result: false]
        }
      ]
    },
    %Ash.Policy.Policy{
      bypass?: false,
      condition: [{Ash.Policy.Check.Static, result: false}],
      policies: [
        %Ash.Policy.Check{
          type: :authorize_if,
          check: {Ash.Policy.Check.Static, result: true},
          check_module: Ash.Policy.Check.Static,
          check_opts: [result: true]
        }
      ]
    }
  ]

  expression = Ash.Policy.Policy.expression(policies, %{})
  
  assert expression == false
  # Expected: false (deny)
  # Actual on main: true (incorrectly authorized)
end

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
💧Hexash3.6.3&&< 3.7.13.7.1mix deps.update ash

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for ash, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

  2. Fix

    Update ash to 3.7.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-pcxq-fjp3-r752 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-pcxq-fjp3-r752 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Tailored to GHSA-pcxq-fjp3-r752. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary Bypass policies incorrectly authorize requests when their condition evaluates to true but their authorization checks fail and no other policies apply. ### Impact Resources with bypass policies can be accessed without proper authorization when: - Bypass condition evaluates to true - Bypass authorization checks fail - Other policies exist but their conditions don't match ### Details Vulnerable code in: [lib/ash/policy/policy.ex:69](https://github.com/ash-project/ash/blob/b2e4d625/lib/ash/policy/policy.ex#L69) ```elixir {%{bypass?: true}, cond_expr, complete_expr}, {one_condition_m
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-pcxq-fjp3-r752 in your dependencies?

O3 Security finds GHSA-pcxq-fjp3-r752 across Hex dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.

GHSA-pcxq-fjp3-r752: ash (High 8.1) | O3 Security