CVE-2026-103502
Description détaillée
Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in hexpm hex_core allows an attacker who can intercept HTTPS connections to impersonate hex.pm, repo.hex.pm or any other repository or API server to programs that use hex_core's default HTTP adapter on Erlang/OTP 24, or on OTP 25 when the operating system's CA certificates can't be loaded. hex_core:default_config/0 selects the built-in hex_http_httpc adapter. For an HTTPS request whose adapter config has no ssl option, hex_http_httpc:http_options/2 builds options that verify the server certificate against public_key:cacerts_get/0. When that call raises, the adapter prints a warning and sends the request without ssl options, so httpc uses the defaults of the ssl application, which before OTP 26 don't verify the server certificate. public_key:cacerts_get/0 doesn't exist on OTP 24, so every HTTPS request falls back there, and on OTP 25 it raises when no CA store is found. hex_core versions before 0.11.0 never set ssl options, so they don't verify the server certificate on OTP 25 and earlier whether or not a CA store is found. The fallback was intended and documented, but the documentation didn't make clear that it meant no certificate verification. Since hex_core 0.8.2 the README has warned that the built-in httpc adapter "has insecure default settings" and recommended other HTTP clients, and the adapter prints "using default ssl options which are insecure" on every request that falls back. hex_core 0.11.0 added certificate verification with the changelog entry "Use secure SSL defaults for OTP 25+". Neither the README nor the warning says that the server certificate isn't verified, the README doesn't say which OTP versions the warning applies to, and on OTP 25 without CA certificates the warning tells users to upgrade to OTP 25 or later, which they already run. This advisory is published so that users who took those notices as general advice know their HTTPS requests weren't authenticated. This issue affects hex_core: from 0.1.0 before 0.20.0.
Références et Patchs
Dernières Vulnérabilités
CVE-2026-9191
Progress MarkLogic Server 12.x releases before 12.1.0 and 11.x releases before 11.3.7 do not sufficiently isolate user-supplied code executed through certain REST and XDBC evaluation paths from HTTP request, response, and session state. An attacker able to execute code through an affected path could perform unauthorized actions or compromise an authenticated session.
CVE-2026-96618
Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in hexpm hex allows an untrusted package mirror to exhaust the memory or disk space of the machine running mix deps.get, mix deps.update, mix hex.package fetch or mix hex.docs fetch. Hex treats a mirror configured with HEX_MIRROR_URL, HEX_MIRROR or mirror_url as untrusted: it doesn't send credentials to it, and it checks registry signatures and package checksums that the mirror can't forge. Several response paths consume memory or disk in proportion to what the mirror sends before any of those checks run. Hex.HTTP.request/5 reads the whole response body into memory and decompresses it with :zlib.gunzip/1 whenever the response's Content-Encoding contains gzip, with no limit on the compressed or decompressed size. Hex doesn't ask for compressed responses, so the server decides whether this step runs. It applies to registry, package, docs and API responses. Package tarballs have no download size limit. Hex 2.5.1 holds the whole tarball in memory and writes it to the cache, and the development branch streams it to a temporary file; the 16 MiB tarball limit is checked only when the file is unpacked. The tarball is then unpacked, into deps/<app> in 2.5.1 and into a staging directory on the development branch, before its checksums are compared with the registry. mix hex.docs fetch, and mix hex.docs offline when docs are missing, write the docs tarball to disk and extract it with :mix_hex_erl_tar.extract/2 without the 16 MiB compressed and 128 MiB decompressed limits that mix_hex_tarball:unpack_docs/3 applies. The signed registry doesn't cover docs tarballs, so nothing checks them. Registry responses are also decompressed before their signature is checked, in hex_core code that Hex vendors; that part is tracked in https://github.com/hexpm/hex_core/security/advisories/GHSA-7c4r-cgf9-9jmq. This issue affects hex: from 0.11.2 before 2.5.2.
CVE-2026-96612
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in hexpm hex allows a malicious package publisher to delete a directory outside the project's deps directory and extract package files into it when a developer fetches dependencies. A package release's requirements carry an app label that names the dependency's OTP application. Hex takes this label from the repository's signed registry and uses it as the dependency's application name without validating it (Hex.RemoteConverger.deps/2, Hex.Mix.to_lock/1). Mix derives the dependency's checkout directory as deps/<app>, and Hex.SCM.update/1 runs File.rm_rf!/1 on that directory and unpacks the package into it. hex.pm only checks the label's length, so a publisher can set it to a value such as ../../target. When a project depends on such a release directly or transitively, mix deps.get or mix deps.update deletes the directory the label resolves to and writes the labelled package's files there. This happens before any dependency code is compiled. This issue affects hex: from 0.6.0 before 2.5.2.