Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability in hexpm hex (Hex.RemoteConverger module) allows dependency integrity bypass v…
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.
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been modified or corrupted in transmission.
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/354.html →Open in CWE collection →Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/75.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary spoofs a checksum message for the purpose of making a payload appear to have a valid corresponding checksum. Checksums are used to verify message integrity. They consist of some value based on the value of the message they are protecting. Hash codes are a common checksum mechanism. Both the sender and recipient are able to compute the checksum based on the contents of the message. If the message contents change between the sender and recipient, the sender and recipient will compute different checksum values. Since the sender's checksum value is transmitted with the message, the recipient would know that a modification occurred. In checksum spoofing an adversary modifies the message body and then modifies the corresponding checksum so that the recipient's checksum calculation will match the checksum (created by the adversary) in the message. This would prevent the recipient from realizing that a change occurred.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/145.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary is able to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key if a target system leaks data on whether or not a padding error happened while decrypting the ciphertext. A target system that leaks this type of information becomes the padding oracle and an adversary is able to make use of that oracle to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key by issuing on average 128*b calls to the padding oracle (where b is the number of bytes in the ciphertext block). In addition to performing decryption, an adversary is also able to produce valid ciphertexts (i.e., perform encryption) by using the padding oracle, all without knowing the encryption key.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/463.html →Open in CAPEC collection →