Skip to content

Phoenix: Presence keys colliding with `Object.prototype` members break existence checks

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 7, 2026 in phoenixframework/phoenix • Updated Sep 3, 2026

Package

erlang phoenix (Erlang)

Affected versions

>= 1.2.0-rc.0, < 1.5.15
>= 1.6.0-rc.0, < 1.6.17
>= 1.7.0-rc.0, < 1.7.24
>= 1.8.0-rc.0, < 1.8.9

Patched versions

1.5.15
1.6.17
1.7.24
1.8.9
npm phoenix (npm)
>= 1.2.0-rc.0, < 1.5.15
>= 1.6.0-rc.0, < 1.6.17
>= 1.7.0-rc.0, < 1.7.24
>= 1.8.0-rc.0, < 1.8.9
1.5.15
1.6.17
1.7.24
1.8.9

Description

Summary

The Phoenix JavaScript presence client (assets/js/phoenix/presence.js) tests whether a presence already exists using a bare truthiness check (state[key]) rather than an own-property check. Because applications commonly track presences under a client-supplied username or id, the presence key can be attacker-controlled. A user who joins a channel and picks a key that names an Object.prototype member (__proto__, constructor, toString, hasOwnProperty, and similar) makes the lookup return the inherited Object.prototype object instead of undefined, which is truthy. The code then reads .metas.map(...) off it and throws an uncaught TypeError, breaking presence sync for every viewer of that channel topic. Any authenticated channel participant can trigger it.

Details

The victim is any browser subscribed to a presence channel. When it receives the server's presence_state message, it invokes Presence.syncState, which iterates the incoming presences and checks whether each one already exists locally via let currentPresence = state[key]. state is a plain object inheriting from Object.prototype. For an ordinary key like alice, state["alice"] is undefined (falsy) and the safe path runs. For the key __proto__ (or constructor, toString, etc.), state["__proto__"] does not resolve to a tracked presence but to JavaScript's built-in Object.prototype, which is truthy. The if(currentPresence) guard passes, and the code evaluates currentPresence.metas.map(m => m.phx_ref). Since Object.prototype.metas is undefined, calling .map on it throws a TypeError.

Phoenix wraps no try/catch around channel binding callbacks, so the TypeError propagates out of the message handler: this.state is never updated and onSync() never fires. The malicious key is tracked server-side, so it is re-pushed on every presence update and keeps re-throwing, leaving presence permanently broken until the attacker leaves. Presence.syncDiff uses the same unsafe state[key] existence-check pattern, so presence diffs fail identically.

Two scoping points matter. The impact is per channel topic, not global: presence state is per-topic on the server and per-Presence-instance in the browser, so only viewers of the topic carrying the malicious key are affected. The bug is a read-time confusion of the prototype object, not prototype pollution: the crash occurs on the state["__proto__"] read in syncState, before any state[key] = ... write is reached, so Object.prototype is never mutated and nothing leaks across channels. The fix builds the state and accumulator objects with Object.create(null) (or a Map) and gates existence checks with Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(obj, key).

If an application does not pass a client-controlled key to Presence.track, it is not affected.

PoC

  1. Connect to an application that uses Phoenix.Presence and tracks presences under a client-chosen key (e.g. a username).
  2. Join a presence channel choosing the key __proto__ (or constructor, toString, hasOwnProperty).
  3. The server tracks the presence and pushes presence_state / presence_diff to every subscriber of that topic.
  4. Each viewer's Presence.syncState (or syncDiff) reads state["__proto__"], gets the truthy Object.prototype, and throws an uncaught TypeError.
  5. Presence sync stays broken for all viewers of the topic until the attacker leaves the channel.

Impact

An attacker with ordinary channel access can cause a persistent, stored client-side denial of service against every browser viewing a presence channel topic, freezing presence updates for all of them until the attacker disconnects. Any application driving the Phoenix JavaScript presence client with user-influenced presence keys is affected.

References

@SteffenDE SteffenDE published to phoenixframework/phoenix Jul 7, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 7, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 3, 2026
Reviewed Sep 3, 2026
Last updated Sep 3, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(53rd percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions

The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-56812

GHSA ID

GHSA-63mc-hw7g-86rr

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.