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: 6.9Exploit: 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 Validation of Integrity Check Value vulnerability in hexpm hex allows a package mirror to substitute the tarball that mix hex.package fetch PACKAGE VERSION --output - writes to standard output.
Hex compares a fetched tarball's inner and outer checksums with the repository's signed registry before writing it to a file or unpacking it. The standard output branch of mix hex.package fetch writes the bytes returned by Hex.SCM.fetch/3 without that comparison, and Hex.SCM.fetch/3 doesn't verify freshly downloaded tarballs itself. When a mirror configured with HEX_MIRROR_URL or mirror_url serves altered bytes, the command prints them and exits successfully, while the same fetch with --output FILE fails with a checksum mismatch.
Hex also prints diagnostics to standard output while the command runs: the body of a failed HTTP response from the update check or a registry fetch, and API warnings from the x-hex-message header. A mirror that answers one of those requests with an error whose body is a tar archive gets that archive written to standard output ahead of the verified tarball, so a pipeline that unpacks standard output extracts the mirror's files. This happens even when the checksum check then fails, because the archive is already on standard output.
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