CVE-2026-80227: SQL string_trim removes only spaces, diverging from in-memory trimming in AshSql
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 8/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.36% (FIRST EPSS).
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: ash-project ash_sql 0.7.1, 1b11b5d8bc5321e2e6acac21594ef08f61986117.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to ash-project ash_sql 0.7.1, 1b11b5d8bc5321e2e6acac21594ef08f61986117 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Incorrect Comparison vulnerability in ash-project ash_sql allows a user to pad a string field with tab, newline, carriage-return, or form-feed characters and pass a trimmed uniqueness or equality check in the database that the same expression would fail in memory (or the reverse). string_trim/1 compiles to REGEXP_REPLACE patterns built from an Elixir string in which \s is the escape for a single space (codepoint 32), not a regex whitespace class. The generated SQL therefore removes only literal spaces and leaves tabs, newlines, carriage returns, and form feeds in place, whereas String.trim/1 in Elixir removes them all. Any Ash filter, validation, or identity that relies on string_trim/1 then behaves differently depending on whether Ash pushes the expression down to SQL or evaluates it in memory, so padded input can register a near-duplicate value or slip past a trimmed comparison. This issue affects ash_sql: from 0.1.0 before 0.7.1.
- Published
- Aug 30, 2026
- Updated
- Sep 3, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.3% · 30th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-697
Report tools
Action score
8
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 8 / 40 · 2.1 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.3%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · EEF
- 2.1
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
—
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (EEF). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
ash-project ash_sql
- 0.1.0 and later · before 0.7.1affected · semver
- dd092ed273dec7bd2194352f24a39229fc8ae68b and later · before 1b11b5d8bc5321e2e6acac21594ef08f61986117affected · git
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hex | ash_sql | from 0.1.0 · before 0.7.1 | 0.7.1 |
Same product
ash-project: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-77454exists/2 predicate silently dropped on limited relationships with a parent() filter in AshSql23Monitor
- CVE-2026-81318Distinct-query aggregate drops the tenant schema prefix, leaking across tenants in AshSql8Monitor
- CVE-2026-81316Same-named aggregates with differing filters are conflated in AshSql8Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-78691Aug 30, 2026 · Unescaped backslash allows LIKE wildcard injection in AshSql string search8Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| ash-project ash_sql | 0.7.1 | Vendor (CNA) |
| ash-project ash_sql | 1b11b5d8bc5321e2e6acac21594ef08f61986117 | Vendor (CNA) |
| Hex:ash_sql | 0.7.1 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
- Zach Daniel / Ash Projectremediation developer
- Peter Ullrichfinder
- Jonatan Männchen / EEFcoordinator
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- Integrity
- Availability
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-697 · Incorrect ComparisonCVSS vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
nvd-secondary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Double EncodingCAPEC-120likelihood: Low · Medium
- Client-side Injection-induced Buffer OverflowCAPEC-14likelihood: Medium · High
- Command DelimitersCAPEC-15likelihood: High · High
- Flash InjectionCAPEC-182likelihood: High · Medium
- Filter Failure through Buffer OverflowCAPEC-24likelihood: High · High
- Leverage Alternate EncodingCAPEC-267likelihood: High · High
- Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input FiltersCAPEC-3likelihood: Medium · Medium
ATT&CK techniques
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (3 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.