EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.4%CVSS: 5.9Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
Upgrade Gleam to 1.19.2 or later (from the CVE record's solution, Erlang Ecosystem Foundation) — apply it.
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in gleam-lang gleam allows a malicious package publisher to delete a directory outside the project's build directory when a developer builds a project.
A Hex package release's metadata carries an app field with the release's OTP application name. Gleam reads this field from the hex.pm release API when it downloads dependencies and uses it as the package's build directory name without validating it (hex_manifest_package in compiler-cli/src/dependencies.rs, ProjectPaths::build_directory_for_package). When a dependency fails to compile, Gleam deletes that directory with remove_dir_all. 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 or an absolute path. When a project depends on such a release directly or transitively and the release fails to compile, gleam build, gleam check, gleam run, gleam test or gleam export deletes the directory the name resolves to. For a pure Gleam package no publisher code runs.
This issue affects gleam: from 0.32.4 before 1.19.2.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
Upgrade Gleam to 1.19.2 or later (from the CVE record's solution, Erlang Ecosystem Foundation). 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 partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither 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)60 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 partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither 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