Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts vulnerability in team-alembic ash_authentication allows an unauthenticated attacker to guess passwords and one-time passwords without limit.
The password, magic link and OTP strategies enforce brute_force_strategy by adding a preparation only to the actions they generate. When the resource defines one of those actions itself, the strategy uses it as written and nothing checked that it carried the preparation, so the setting compiled and applied no limit. The generators produce exactly this: mix ash_authentication.install writes sign_in_with_password, request_password_reset_token and request_magic_link, mix ash_authentication.upgrade then adds brute_force_strategy to those strategies, and mix ash_authentication.add_strategy.otp writes its OTP actions without the preparation. Separately, with registration_enabled? true the OTP sign-in is a create action, which preparations do not run on, so brute_force_strategy {:preparation, module} never applied to it.
This issue affects ash_authentication: from 5.0.0-rc.4 before 5.0.0-rc.16.
| Software | Affected versions |
|---|---|
| team-alembic / ash_authentication | >= 5.0.0-rc.4, < 5.0.0-rc.16 |
A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.
What is attack surface management? →A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.