CVE Intelligence
Medium Cryptography

CVE-2026-103502 — hex_core's default HTTP adapter doesn't verify TLS certificates on OTP 24 and 25

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.

Published Oct 12, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: EEF

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+2
  • Technical severity (medium)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.25%
ahead of 15% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Hexpm
Hex Core
CVSS base
5.9
Medium · 2 source(s)

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Hexpm Hex Core).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
  5. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (cryptography), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Hexpm Hex Core ≥ 0.1.0 and < 0.20.0≥ fbb6d9de472e5edb8d6fb6b32a91cb266137892e and < b7b3a42defb4ed8e20a5c68a4412ce68a95b7938 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Active
Scope
X
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent)
None
Integrity (subsequent)
None
Availability (subsequent)
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
5.9 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.9 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — EEF via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X (score shown at the top: 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-295 · Improper Certificate Validation

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 15, 2026 · 3 reading(s) · max 0.25%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Check TLS negotiations and unexpected certificates in the component’s traffic.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · hexpm/hex core
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Source status changed · Received → Deferred
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 5.9
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Received
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Oct 12, 2026 · EEF

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

5 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Hexpm
every CVE for this vendor
Cryptography
same class
CWE-295
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-96596 erl_tar:extract/2 loops forever on a GNU sparse member with a trailing hole 1d
  • CVE-2026-105274 hex_core decompresses registry and Erlang term API responses without size limits 3d
  • CVE-2026-21619 Unsafe Deserialization of Erlang Terms in hex_core Feb 27, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No CISA SSVC assessment.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-103502 is "hex_core's default HTTP adapter doesn't verify TLS certificates on OTP 24 and 25", rated Medium. It affects Hex Core (Hexpm); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 5.9 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.25% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.