{"api_version":"1","generated_at":"2026-08-31T03:53:52+00:00","cve":"CVE-2026-78699","urls":{"html":"https://cve.report/CVE-2026-78699","api":"https://cve.report/api/cve/CVE-2026-78699.json","docs":"https://cve.report/api","cve_org":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-78699","nvd":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-78699"},"summary":{"title":"rename_tenant returns :ok on a failed rename, enabling cross-tenant access in AshPostgres","description":"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.\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's data.\n\nThis issue affects ash_postgres: from 0.25.0 before 2.13.0.","state":"PUBLISHED","assigner":"EEF","published_at":"2026-08-30 16:16:42","updated_at":"2026-08-30 16:16:42"},"problem_types":["CWE-252","CWE-252 CWE-252 Unchecked Return Value"],"metrics":[{"version":"4.0","source":"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db","type":"Secondary","score":"7.2","severity":"HIGH","vector":"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/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","data":{"version":"4.0","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/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","baseScore":7.2,"baseSeverity":"HIGH","attackVector":"LOCAL","attackComplexity":"LOW","attackRequirements":"PRESENT","privilegesRequired":"LOW","userInteraction":"NONE","vulnConfidentialityImpact":"HIGH","vulnIntegrityImpact":"HIGH","vulnAvailabilityImpact":"NONE","subConfidentialityImpact":"NONE","subIntegrityImpact":"NONE","subAvailabilityImpact":"NONE","exploitMaturity":"NOT_DEFINED","confidentialityRequirement":"NOT_DEFINED","integrityRequirement":"NOT_DEFINED","availabilityRequirement":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedAttackVector":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedAttackComplexity":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedAttackRequirements":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedPrivilegesRequired":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedUserInteraction":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedSubIntegrityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","Safety":"NOT_DEFINED","Automatable":"NOT_DEFINED","Recovery":"NOT_DEFINED","valueDensity":"NOT_DEFINED","vulnerabilityResponseEffort":"NOT_DEFINED","providerUrgency":"NOT_DEFINED"}},{"version":"4.0","source":"CNA","type":"CVSS","score":"7.2","severity":"HIGH","vector":"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","data":{"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"}}],"references":[{"url":"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_postgres/security/advisories/GHSA-6fqq-j9c4-5766","name":"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_postgres/security/advisories/GHSA-6fqq-j9c4-5766","refsource":"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db","tags":[],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-78699","name":"https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-78699","refsource":"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db","tags":[],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-78699.html","name":"https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-78699.html","refsource":"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db","tags":[],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_postgres/commit/8544ab15fe45784553c2d2da8ee1a388eee0174b","name":"https://github.com/ash-project/ash_postgres/commit/8544ab15fe45784553c2d2da8ee1a388eee0174b","refsource":"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db","tags":[],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-78699","name":"CVE Program record","refsource":"CVE.ORG","tags":["canonical"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-78699","name":"NVD vulnerability detail","refsource":"NVD","tags":["canonical","analysis"]}],"affected":[{"source":"CNA","vendor":"ash-project","product":"ash_postgres","version":"affected 0.25.0 2.13.0 semver","platforms":[]},{"source":"CNA","vendor":"ash-project","product":"ash_postgres","version":"affected 03510dae24020e302558ef947be7ea874a9ce756 8544ab15fe45784553c2d2da8ee1a388eee0174b git","platforms":[]}],"timeline":[],"solutions":[],"workarounds":[],"exploits":[],"credits":[{"source":"CNA","value":"Peter Ullrich","lang":"en"},{"source":"CNA","value":"Peter Ullrich","lang":"en"},{"source":"CNA","value":"Zach Daniel / Ash Project","lang":"en"},{"source":"CNA","value":"Jonatan Männchen / EEF","lang":"en"}],"nvd_cpes":[],"vendor_comments":[],"enrichments":{"kev":null,"epss":null,"legacy_qids":[]},"source_records":{"cve_program":{"containers":{"cna":{"affected":[{"collectionURL":"https://repo.hex.pm","cpes":["cpe:2.3:a:ash-project:ash_postgres:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"],"defaultStatus":"unaffected","modules":["'Elixir.AshPostgres.MultiTenancy'"],"packageName":"ash_postgres","packageURL":"pkg:hex/ash_postgres","product":"ash_postgres","programFiles":["lib/multitenancy.ex"],"programRoutines":[{"name":"'Elixir.AshPostgres.MultiTenancy':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":["'Elixir.AshPostgres.MultiTenancy'"],"packageName":"ash-project/ash_postgres","packageURL":"pkg:github/ash-project/ash_postgres","product":"ash_postgres","programFiles":["lib/multitenancy.ex"],"programRoutines":[{"name":"'Elixir.AshPostgres.MultiTenancy':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":"<p>An application must run ash_postgres schema-based multitenancy with a user-driven tenant rename (for example a <code>manage_tenant</code> update on an editable org slug or subdomain), letting a user choose a new tenant name that collides with an existing tenant's schema.</p>"},{"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's 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's 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 Männchen / EEF"}],"descriptions":[{"lang":"en","supportingMedia":[{"base64":false,"type":"text/html","value":"<p>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.</p>\n<p><code>AshPostgres.MultiTenancy.rename_tenant/3</code> issues the <code>ALTER SCHEMA ... RENAME TO ...</code> with the non-raising <code>Ecto.Adapters.SQL.query/2</code>, discards its <code>{:ok, _} | {:error, _}</code> result, and unconditionally returns <code>:ok</code>. 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 <code>manage_tenant</code> 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.</p>\n<p>This issue affects ash_postgres: from 0.25.0 before 2.13.0.</p>"},{"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's schema to have their tenant record repointed at that other tenant's 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's 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's schema to have their tenant record repointed at that other tenant's 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's 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"},"nvd":{"publishedDate":"2026-08-30 16:16:42","lastModifiedDate":"2026-08-30 16:16:42","problem_types":["CWE-252","CWE-252 CWE-252 Unchecked Return Value"],"metrics":{"cvssMetricV40":[{"source":"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db","type":"Secondary","cvssData":{"version":"4.0","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/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","baseScore":7.2,"baseSeverity":"HIGH","attackVector":"LOCAL","attackComplexity":"LOW","attackRequirements":"PRESENT","privilegesRequired":"LOW","userInteraction":"NONE","vulnConfidentialityImpact":"HIGH","vulnIntegrityImpact":"HIGH","vulnAvailabilityImpact":"NONE","subConfidentialityImpact":"NONE","subIntegrityImpact":"NONE","subAvailabilityImpact":"NONE","exploitMaturity":"NOT_DEFINED","confidentialityRequirement":"NOT_DEFINED","integrityRequirement":"NOT_DEFINED","availabilityRequirement":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedAttackVector":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedAttackComplexity":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedAttackRequirements":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedPrivilegesRequired":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedUserInteraction":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedSubIntegrityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact":"NOT_DEFINED","Safety":"NOT_DEFINED","Automatable":"NOT_DEFINED","Recovery":"NOT_DEFINED","valueDensity":"NOT_DEFINED","vulnerabilityResponseEffort":"NOT_DEFINED","providerUrgency":"NOT_DEFINED"}}]},"configurations":[]},"legacy_mitre":{"record":{"CveYear":"2026","CveId":"78699","Ordinal":"1","Title":"rename_tenant returns :ok on a failed rename, enabling cross-ten","CVE":"CVE-2026-78699","Year":"2026"},"notes":[{"CveYear":"2026","CveId":"78699","Ordinal":"1","NoteData":"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.\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's data.\n\nThis issue affects ash_postgres: from 0.25.0 before 2.13.0.","Type":"Description","Title":"rename_tenant returns :ok on a failed rename, enabling cross-ten"}]}}}