CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
highPath Traversalpublic exploit

CVE-2026-96612

CVE-2026-96612 — Path traversal in Hex via unvalidated dependency app names

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.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, hexpm (CNA), GitHub, Red Hat (VEX), SOCRadar CTI

Triage

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

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

0%

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

hexpm

2 products listed

CVSS base

7.5

high · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade Hex to 2.5.2 or later, for example with mix local.hex. Hex then skips package releases that give a dependency an application name other than a letter followed by letters, digits, _ and -, and warns about them. Resolution fails if no other release of the package fits the requirements.

Red Hat VEX · CVE-2026-96612

fixed0affected0not affected1

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

  • Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
  • Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
  • Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
hexpmhex0.6.0 to < 2.5.2Vulnerable
hexpmhex380f87054e1bc08ee13d2b5311bc01f98dad2fc6Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Scope

X

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

A

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
7.5CVSS 4.0high——hexpm (CNA)
8.8CVSS 3.1high——Red Hat (VEX)

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-22 · Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

  • Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
  • Modify Files or Directories
  • Read Files or Directories
  • DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart

Mitigation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an accept known good input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, boat may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as red or blue. Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single . character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as / to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering / is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if ../ sequences are removed from the .../...// string in a sequential fashion, two instances of ../ would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the ../ string.

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-22Path Traversal

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-126 · Path TraversalCAPEC-76 · Manipulating Web Input to File System CallsCAPEC-79 · Using Slashes in Alternate EncodingCAPEC-64 · Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation LogicCAPEC-78 · Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

1

Detection

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

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /2, /1), /1, /../target.
  • Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable hex.
  • Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.
web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026

  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 7.5 (AV:N)

    Oct 12, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Oct 12, 2026 · NVD

  4. CVE published by MITRE.

    Oct 12, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

8 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

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 record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-96612 is Path traversal in Hex via unvalidated dependency app names, a high vulnerability affecting hex from hexpm. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-96612. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.