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: 0.2%CVSS: 5.9Exploit: 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 Hex to 2.5.2 or later, for example with mix local.hex."
Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in hexpm hex allows an attacker who can intercept HTTPS connections, and holds a certificate for a Hex host issued by a CA in Hex's bundled CA store, to impersonate that host to users who set cacerts_path to a CA store that leaves that CA out.
cacerts_path (HEX_CACERTS_PATH) is documented as the path to the CA certificate store, used instead of the CA bundle that ships with Hex. Hex.HTTP.SSL.ssl_opts/1 passes the configured store as the cacerts option, but builds the partial_chain callback from the bundled store whether cacerts_path is set or not. Hex.HTTP.SSL.partial_chain/2 accepts a server chain when any certificate in it has the same public key as a bundled CA certificate, so a chain that leads to a bundled CA passes verification although the configured store doesn't contain that CA. Hostname verification still applies.
This issue affects hex: from 0.20.2 before 2.5.2.
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 (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). 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 (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). 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