hexpm: Incorrect Authorization
CVE-2026-75542 is a high-severity incorrect authorization vulnerability in hexpm, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.3 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. The record lists versions 2026-08-24, bf0fb9d208f0acfabf7a2f7467c8231659e322a8 as the first without the flaw, so updating hexpm to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.46% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update hexpm to 2026-08-24 or bf0fb9d208f0acfabf7a2f7467c8231659e322a8, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hexpm | hexpm | 2025-10-18 up to, but not including, 2026-08-24; 71829cb6f6559bcceb1ef4e43a2fb8cdd3af654b up to, but not including, bf0fb9d208f0acfabf7a2f7467c8231659e322a8 | 2026-08-24, bf0fb9d208f0acfabf7a2f7467c8231659e322a8 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Attack requirements
- NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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. Scored by CNA.
Official description
Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in the OAuth token endpoint in hexpm hexpm allows an API key holding the repositories permission to read another organization's private packages. When an API key is exchanged for a token through the OAuth client_credentials grant, validate_scopes_against_key/2 in lib/hexpm_web/controllers/api/oauth_controller.ex admits a requested scope whenever the key carries the repositories permission and the scope string begins with repository:. The organization name is never resolved against the principal, and expand_repositories_scope/3 only rewrites the literal repositories scope, so an explicit repository:<name> passes through untouched. Both CDN edges authorize repository access from the token claim without querying the database, so the minted token is read access to that organization's private packages until it expires. This issue affects hex.pm: from 2025-10-18 before 2026-08-24.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other vulnerabilities in hexpm
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Incorrect Authorization vulnerabilities
- 8.1 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 8.5 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 9.9 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.