Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-58226 is a high-severity Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity (CWE-407) vulnerability in Erlef (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 45th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-5 (Denial-of-service Protection) and SC-6 (Resource Availability) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-41861
Vulnerability Data
Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity vulnerability in elixir-mint hpax allows unauthenticated denial-of-service via unbounded HPACK integer decoding. hpax decodes HPACK variable-length integers with no upper bound on the decoded value or the number of continuation octets. 'Elixir.HPAX.Types':decode_remaining_integer/3 accumulates the integer as int…
more
+ (value <<< m), shifting by 7 more bits for each continuation octet and stopping only on a terminating octet or truncated input, never because the integer grew too large. Because BEAM integers are arbitrary precision, a run of N continuation octets builds an O(N)-bit bignum and re-adds into an ever-larger bignum on each step, so the total decoding cost is superlinear (about O(N^2)). An unauthenticated attacker who can send an HTTP/2 header block to a server using this decoder (reached through the 'Elixir.HPAX':decode/2 entry point) can supply a small header block that forces a large, attacker-controlled amount of CPU (and transient memory), a denial-of-service amplification. This issue affects hpax from 0.1.1 before 1.0.4.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Denial-of-service protection directly reduces the impact of resource exhaustion triggered by worst-case algorithmic inputs.
Resource availability allocation limits blast radius when an inefficient algorithm is forced into its worst case.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Runtime monitoring of software and resources can detect the performance impact of triggered worst-case complexity.
Identifying and recording algorithmic-complexity vulnerabilities directly addresses the root cause before exploitation.
Secure SDLC practices (code review, complexity analysis, safe algorithm selection) prevent introduction of exploitable worst-case behavior.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Redundancy of processing facilities can absorb resource exhaustion from inefficient algorithms.
Monitoring activities can identify anomalous resource consumption indicative of algorithmic complexity attacks.
Secure development life cycle includes design reviews that can catch inefficient algorithms before deployment.
Secure system architecture principles encourage selection of algorithms with acceptable worst-case complexity.
Secure coding practices can include guidelines to avoid or mitigate inefficient algorithms.
Security testing can uncover performance issues stemming from algorithmic complexity.