CVE Intelligence
Low

CVE-2026-96618 — Hex exhausts memory and disk on oversized or compressed responses from an untrusted mirror

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.

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 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+4

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
0.33%
ahead of 24% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Hexpm
Hex
CVSS base
2.1
Low · 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).
  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, errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Hexpm Hex ≥ 0.11.2 and < 2.5.2≥ 51ea632424fb6ea8765148f96dc25dfeb526b1f8 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)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
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
2.1 CVSS 4.0 Low — — 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db via NIST National Vulnerability Database
2.1 CVSS 4.0 Low — — EEF via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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-409

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.33%

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
  • Source status changed · Received → Deferred
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 2.1
    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

6 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Hexpm
every CVE for this vendor
CWE-409
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-2026-81856 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
  • High CVE-2026-105668 Hex release-age cooldown is lifted package-wide when the locked release is retired 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 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-2026-96618 is "Hex exhausts memory and disk on oversized or compressed responses from an untrusted mirror", rated Low. It affects Hex (Hexpm); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 2.1 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.33% 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.