Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability in Gleam allows an adversary in the middle to substitute forged Hex package contents during dependency resolution.
During dependency resolution Gleam fetches package metadata from the signature-verified Hex repository, which covers each release's dependency requirements and SHA-256 outer_checksum. After resolving versions, gleam_cli::dependencies::lookup_package makes a second request to the unsigned Hex API through gleam_core::hex::get_package_release and records the outer_checksum and dependency names from that JSON response into manifest.toml, instead of the values from the verified repository metadata. The Hex repository signature does not cover the API response.
An adversary in the middle who can intercept TLS with a certificate trusted by the Gleam process (for example a TLS-inspecting proxy using a CA in the operating system trust store or added through GLEAM_CACERTS_PATH), and who can modify both the API release response and the corresponding repository tarball, can supply a package archive with a matching forged checksum without the Hex repository signing key. Gleam verifies the forged tarball against the forged checksum, accepts it, and extracts it as a dependency source, resulting in loss of integrity of the downloaded package contents.
Only projects that resolve or update Hex dependencies are affected, which happens when the manifest is missing, a dependency is added or updated, or dependency requirements change. Builds that reuse an unchanged, known-good manifest.toml continue to verify tarballs against its pinned checksum. This issue affects gleam: from 0.18.0 before 1.18.0.
During dependency resolution Gleam fetches package metadata from the signature-verified Hex repository, which covers each release's dependency requirements and SHA-256 outer_checksum. After resolving versions, gleam_cli::dependencies::lookup_package makes a second request to the unsigned Hex API through gleam_core::hex::get_package_release and records the outer_checksum and dependency names from that JSON response into manifest.toml, instead of the values from the verified repository metadata. The Hex repository signature does not cover the API response.
An adversary in the middle who can intercept TLS with a certificate trusted by the Gleam process (for example a TLS-inspecting proxy using a CA in the operating system trust store or added through GLEAM_CACERTS_PATH), and who can modify both the API release response and the corresponding repository tarball, can supply a package archive with a matching forged checksum without the Hex repository signing key. Gleam verifies the forged tarball against the forged checksum, accepts it, and extracts it as a dependency source, resulting in loss of integrity of the downloaded package contents.
Only projects that resolve or update Hex dependencies are affected, which happens when the manifest is missing, a dependency is added or updated, or dependency requirements change. Builds that reuse an unchanged, known-good manifest.toml continue to verify tarballs against its pinned checksum. This issue affects gleam: from 0.18.0 before 1.18.0.
Default status is the baseline for the product, each version can override it (e.g. patched versions marked unaffected).
| Vendor | Product | Default status | Versions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| gleam-lang | gleam | unaffected |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| gleam-lang | gleam | unaffected |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| gleam-lang | gleam | unaffected |
|
No data.
No data.
No data.
Advisories
No advisories yet.
Fixes
Solution
No solution given by the vendor.
Workaround
No workaround given by the vendor.
References
History
Wed, 29 Jul 2026 15:30:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Metrics |
ssvc
|
Wed, 29 Jul 2026 14:45:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Description | Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability in Gleam allows an adversary in the middle to substitute forged Hex package contents during dependency resolution. During dependency resolution Gleam fetches package metadata from the signature-verified Hex repository, which covers each release's dependency requirements and SHA-256 outer_checksum. After resolving versions, gleam_cli::dependencies::lookup_package makes a second request to the unsigned Hex API through gleam_core::hex::get_package_release and records the outer_checksum and dependency names from that JSON response into manifest.toml, instead of the values from the verified repository metadata. The Hex repository signature does not cover the API response. An adversary in the middle who can intercept TLS with a certificate trusted by the Gleam process (for example a TLS-inspecting proxy using a CA in the operating system trust store or added through GLEAM_CACERTS_PATH), and who can modify both the API release response and the corresponding repository tarball, can supply a package archive with a matching forged checksum without the Hex repository signing key. Gleam verifies the forged tarball against the forged checksum, accepts it, and extracts it as a dependency source, resulting in loss of integrity of the downloaded package contents. Only projects that resolve or update Hex dependencies are affected, which happens when the manifest is missing, a dependency is added or updated, or dependency requirements change. Builds that reuse an unchanged, known-good manifest.toml continue to verify tarballs against its pinned checksum. This issue affects gleam: from 0.18.0 before 1.18.0. | |
| Title | Insufficient verification of Hex package metadata in Gleam | |
| First Time appeared |
Gleam-lang
Gleam-lang gleam |
|
| Weaknesses | CWE-345 | |
| CPEs | cpe:2.3:a:gleam-lang:gleam:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* | |
| Vendors & Products |
Gleam-lang
Gleam-lang gleam |
|
| References |
|
|
| Metrics |
cvssV4_0
|
Projects
Sign in to view the affected projects.
MITRE
Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: EEF
Published:
Updated: 2026-07-29T15:09:39.613Z
Reserved: 2026-07-04T04:24:03.652Z
Link: CVE-2026-59247
Vulnrichment
Updated: 2026-07-29T15:09:30.653Z
NVD
No data.
Redhat
No data.
OpenCVE Enrichment
No data.
Weaknesses