EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
A fix is available — apply it.
Fixed versions, as the CVE record's CNA (Erlang Ecosystem Foundation) states them: "Upgrade rebar3 to 3.27.2 or later, for example with rebar3 local upgrade."
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in erlang rebar3 allows a malicious package publisher to delete a directory outside the project's _build directory and extract package files into it when a developer fetches dependencies.
A package release's dependencies in a Hex registry carry an app field that names the dependency's OTP application. rebar3 uses this field as the dependency's name without validating it (rebar_packages:parse_deps/1) and builds the dependency's directory from that name (rebar_app_utils:dep_to_app/7). rebar_fetch:download_source_online/2 deletes that directory with rm -rf and moves the fetched package into it. hex.pm didn't restrict the field to a directory name before 2026-10-12, so a publisher could set it to a value such as ../../../../target. When a project depends on such a release directly or transitively, rebar3 get-deps deletes the directory the name resolves to and writes the dependency's files there. This happens before the dependency's own rebar.config.script is evaluated, and get-deps compiles nothing.
This issue affects rebar3: from 3.7.0-rc1 before 3.27.2.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it