Medium exploit reference

CVE-2026-32148 — Lockfile checksums not verified in Hex allows dependency integrity bypass

Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability in hexpm hex (Hex.RemoteConverger module) allows dependency integrity bypass via unverified lockfile checksums. Hex stores checksums for dependencies in the mix.lock file to ensure reproducible and integrity-checked builds. However, Hex.RemoteConverger.verify_resolved/2 never executes checksum verification because the lock data returned by Hex.Utils.lock/1 uses string-based dependency names, while the verification logic compares against atom-based names. This type mismatch causes the verification code path to be silently skipped. Checksums are still validated when packages are initially downloaded from the registry, but mismatches between the lockfile and resolved dependencies are not detected. An attacker who can influence cached packages (e.g., via local cache poisoning or a compromised registry) can provide modified dependency contents that will be accepted without detection. The mix.lock file is silently rewritten with the checksum values from the registry, erasing evidence of tampering. This issue affects hex: from 0.16.0 before 2.4.2.

Published Apr 30, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: EEF

Low

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 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+2
Technical severity (medium)+3
CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

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

0.26%

ahead of 16% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026

Affects

Hex

CVSS base

5.9

Medium · 3 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation

Proof of concept

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script the kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

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

Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
Documented patch — github.com (NIST National Vulnerability Database)

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.

Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Hex Hex, Hexpm Hex).
The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status	Source
Hex	Hex	≥ 0.16.0 and < 2.4.2	Vulnerable	NIST National Vulnerability Database
Hexpm	Hex	≥ 0.16.0 and < 2.4.2≥ e01576f28c64af9fae6eb17e2dad30f6efcb303c and < d7528c8199a1144511508bf3a6460026a5a14c8e	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

High

Privileges required

None

User interaction

None

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

High

Availability

None

Every base score collected

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

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Scored by
8.9	CVSS 4.0	High	—	—	6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.9	CVSS 4.0	High	—	—	EEF via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
5.9	CVSS 3.1	Medium	2.2	3.6	nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-354

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.26%

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).

web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

2026
Affected products added · hexpm/hex
Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
SSVC assessment updated
Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
Record published
Oct 13, 2026
Fix documented
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVSS changed · 5.9
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Source status changed · → Analyzed
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Record created in this database
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVE published
Apr 30, 2026 · EEF

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

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

References

4 on the record

github.com/hexpm/hex/security/advisories/GHSA-hmv9-4mfr-m92v
Exploit, Patch, Vendor Advisory, vendor-advisory, related, NIST National Vulnerability Database
github.com/hexpm/hex/commit/d7528c8199a1144511508bf3a6460026a5a14c8e
Patch, patch, NIST National Vulnerability Database
cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-32148.html
Third Party Advisory, related, NIST National Vulnerability Database
osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-32148
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, related, NIST National Vulnerability Database

Elsewhere on this site

Hex
every CVE for this vendor

CWE-354
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

Medium CVE-2026-96596 erl_tar:extract/2 loops forever on a GNU sparse member with a trailing hole 1d
Low CVE-2026-105274 hex_core decompresses registry and Erlang term API responses without size limits 3d
High CVE-2026-96612 Path traversal in Hex via unvalidated dependency app names 3d
Low CVE-2026-96618 Hex exhausts memory and disk on oversized or compressed responses from an untrusted mirror 3d
Low CVE-2026-81856 Terminal escape sequence injection in Hex via unneutralized server-supplied output 3d
Medium CVE-2026-105280 Hex writes unverified package tarballs to standard output in mix hex.package fetch 3d

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 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-2026-32148 is "Lockfile checksums not verified in Hex allows dependency integrity bypass", rated Medium. It affects Hex (Hex); 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 0.26% 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.