Quick answer
Direct answer
Risk scores
| CVSS metric | What it means |
|---|---|
| Attack vector (AV:N) | Network: reachable remotely |
| Attack complexity (AC:L) | Low complexity |
| Attack requirements (AT:P) | Attack requirements present |
| Privileges required (PR:N) | No privileges required |
| User interaction (UI:P) | Passive user interaction |
| Confidentiality (VC:H) | High confidentiality impact |
| Integrity (VI:H) | High integrity impact |
| Availability (VA:N) | No availability impact |
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
About Erlang/Otp
CVE-2026-32144 affects Erlang/Otp, a product from Erlang. Before acting, confirm where Erlang/Otp runs in your estate, who owns it and whether it is reachable from the internet, because exposure decides real risk more than the score alone.
What the flaw is
In plain terms: Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification. The OCSP response validation in public_key:pkix_ocsp_validate/5 does not verify that a CA-designated responder certificate was cryptographically signed by the issuing CA. Instead, it only checks that the responder certificate's issuer name matches the CA's subject name and that the certificate has the OCSPSigning extended key usage. An attacker who can intercept or control OCSP responses can create a self-signed certificate with a matching issuer name and the OCSPSigning EKU, and use it to forge OCSP responses that mark revoked certificates as valid. This affects SSL/TLS clients using OCSP stapling, which may accept connections to servers with revoked certificates, potentially transmitting sensitive data to compromised servers. Applications using the public_key:pkix_ocsp_validate/5 API directly are also affected, with impact depending on usage context. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/public_key/src/pubkey_ocsp.erl and program routines pubkey_ocsp:is_authorized_responder/3. This issue affects OTP from OTP 27.0 before OTP 28.4.2 and OTP 27.3.4.10, corresponding to public_key from 1.16 before 1.20.3 and 1.17.1.2, and ssl from 11.2 before 11.5.4 and 11.2.12.7.
Based on its CVSS vector, the flaw can be reached over the network, needs no login, and relies on a user taking an action. Apply the vendor fix and confirm exposure on internet facing and business critical assets first.
Affected versions and timeline
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Product | Erlang/Otp |
| Affected versions | Erlang/Otp from 27.0 before 27.3.4.10; Erlang/Otp from 28.0 before 28.4.2; Erlang/Public Key from 1.16 before 1.17.1.2; Erlang/Public Key from 1.18 before 1.20.3; Erlang/Ssl from 11.2 before 11.2.12.7; Erlang/Ssl after 11.3 before 11.5.4 |
| Published | Apr 7, 2026 |
| Last modified | Jul 24, 2026 |
| Added to CISA KEV | Not listed |
| Assigning CNA | 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db |
How to detect it
- Inventory every instance of Erlang/Otp and record the running version against the affected range above.
- Check external attack surface scans for internet facing instances of the component.
- Review logs on affected systems for unusual requests, errors or new processes around the vulnerable function.
- Confirm with an authenticated vulnerability scan once your scanner has a check for this CVE.
How to fix it
- Apply the fixed version of Erlang/Otp named in the vendor advisory.
- If patching must wait, restrict network access to the affected service and put it behind authentication or a web application firewall rule.
- Rescan after the change to prove the exposure is gone, then close the ticket.
CTEM action plan
| CTEM stage | What to do for this CVE |
|---|---|
| Scope | Add every business service that depends on Erlang/Otp to the current CTEM cycle. |
| Discover | Find all instances, including shadow and cloud deployments, and record versions and exposure. |
| Prioritize | Rank using EPSS and CVSS together with asset exposure and business impact. |
| Validate | Confirm the flaw is reachable and exploitable in your environment and that compensating controls work. |
| Mobilize | Assign the fix to the asset owner with a due date matched to the priority, then verify closure. |
CWE References
Technical References
Frequently asked questions
Related CVEs
Allocation of resources without limits in Erlang/OTP public_key certificate path validation allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to cause denial of service by sending a crafted X.509 certificate chain during the TLS handshake. During RFC 5280 policy processing in public_key:pkix_path_validation/3, the certificate policy tree maintained by pubkey_policy_tree grows without an upper bound. When a certificate chain contains M policies per certificate and K certificates, the tree grows on the order of M^K nodes because pubkey_policy_tree:add_leaves/2 and pubkey_policy_tree:add_leaf_siblings/2 extend the tree per policy per certificate. A modest chain with many policies per certificate is enough to pin BEAM schedulers and exhaust the node's memory, taking down the entire VM. The attacker only needs to be able to present a certificate chain to the victim, which is the normal precondition for a TLS handshake, so exploitation succeeds against any incoming or outgoing TLS connection that validates the peer's chain (the default for SSL/TLS clients and mutual-TLS servers). This is the same vulnerability class as OpenSSL's X509_verify_cert policy tree DoS. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/public_key/src/pubkey_policy_tree.erl and program routines pubkey_policy_tree:add_leaves/2 and pubkey_policy_tree:add_leaf_siblings/2. This issue affects OTP from OTP 26.2 before OTP 29.0.4, OTP 28.5.0.4 and OTP 27.3.4.15, corresponding to public_key from 1.15 before 1.21.4, 1.20.3.4 and 1.17.1.5.
The Erlang/OTP ssl application does not detect cycles when reconstructing an incomplete peer certificate chain during a TLS or DTLS handshake. In ssl_certificate:handle_incomplete_chain/5, the received chain is passed to ssl_certificate:build_certificate_chain/5, which walks issuer relationships via ssl_certificate:do_certificate_chain/7 with no cycle detection and no depth limit. When the peer supplies two mutually cross-signed certificates in unordered form (A issues B, B issues A), the issuer lookup alternates between the two certificates and the pair of functions recurses indefinitely, growing the call stack and chain accumulator without bound. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a crafted certificate chain in a TLS or DTLS Certificate handshake message to exhaust available memory and crash the BEAM node. Only a TCP connection and a partial handshake are required; no authentication or completed handshake is needed, and both TLS/DTLS servers and clients are affected when processing peer certificate messages. This issue affects OTP from OTP 23.2 before OTP 29.0.4, OTP 28.5.0.4 and OTP 27.3.4.15, corresponding to ssl from 10.2 before 11.7.4, 11.6.0.4 and 11.2.12.11.
The Erlang/OTP ssl TLS 1.2 (and earlier) and DTLS client does not verify that the cipher suite selected by the server in ServerHello was among the suites offered by the client in ClientHello. The client-side tls_handshake:hello/5 handler validates the negotiated protocol version and the downgrade sentinel but hands the server-chosen suite directly to ssl_handshake:handle_server_hello_extensions/9, which installs it without a membership check. The TLS 1.3 client path performs this check (per RFC 8446), so it is not affected. An on-path attacker between the client and the intended server can respond with a ServerHello selecting an anonymous key exchange suite such as TLS_DH_anon_* or TLS_ECDH_anon_* that the client never offered. Anonymous suites do not require the server to present a certificate, so the entire verify_peer and cacerts configuration is bypassed: the attacker completes the handshake with its own ephemeral parameters, no certificate is validated, no hostname is checked, and ssl:connect returns {ok, Socket}. All subsequent application traffic is readable and modifiable by the attacker. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.15, from OTP 28.0 before OTP 28.5.0.4, and from OTP 29.0 before OTP 29.0.4, corresponding to ssl from 5.3.4 before 11.2.12.11, from 11.3 before 11.6.0.4, and from 11.7 before 11.7.4. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to ssl before 5.3.4, is affected is unknown.
Integer Underflow (Wrap or Wraparound) vulnerability in erlang otp erlang/otp (erts modules), erlang otp erts (erts modules) allows Forced Integer Overflow, Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files erts/emulator/beam/external.c, emulator/beam/external.c. The BIT_BINARY_EXT tag (77) handler in the External Term Format (ETF) decoder accepts an encoding with both length and trailing-bits fields set to zero. The subsequent computation of the bitstring size underflows an unsigned integer, producing a value of roughly 2^64 that is then passed as a memory allocation size. The allocator aborts the entire node with a message such as "Cannot allocate 2305843009213693951 bytes of memory (of type binary)". The crash is a VM-level abort, not an Erlang-level exception. It cannot be intercepted by supervision trees, by try/catch, or by passing the [safe] option to binary_to_term/2 (which only restricts atom creation and does not perform structural validation of binary encodings). Any application that decodes ETF from untrusted sources via binary_to_term/1,2 or enif_binary_to_term() is exposed. The Erlang distribution protocol also decodes incoming terms through the same code path, but distribution is expected to run on trusted networks per the OTP Secure Coding Guidelines (DSG-011). This issue affects OTP from OTP 27.0 before OTP 29.0.4, OTP 28.5.0.4 and OTP 27.3.4.15, corresponding to erts from 15.0 before 17.0.4, 16.4.0.4 and 15.2.7.11.
The Erlang/OTP ssl application does not validate that the PSK identity list and binder list carried in a TLS 1.3 ClientHello pre-shared key extension have equal length before passing them to the session ticket handler. In tls_handshake_1_3:handle_pre_shared_key/3, an OfferedPreSharedKeys record with a mismatched number of identities and binders is forwarded directly to tls_server_session_ticket:use/4, which crashes the session ticket handler process. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a single crafted ClientHello to a TLS 1.3 server with session tickets enabled (stateful or stateless mode) and permanently disrupt session ticket handling on that listener. New TLS 1.3 handshakes complete but subsequently crash when the server attempts to issue a session ticket, effectively making TLS 1.3 unusable on the affected listener until the ssl application is restarted. TLS 1.2 connections are not affected. This issue affects OTP from OTP 22.2 before OTP 29.0.3, OTP 28.5.0.3 and OTP 27.3.4.14, corresponding to ssl from 9.5 before 11.7.3, 11.6.0.3 and 11.2.12.10.
Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Erlang OTP erts (inet_drv) allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to crash the BEAM VM by sending a crafted SCTP ERROR chunk. The sctp_parse_error_chunk function in erts/emulator/drivers/common/inet_drv.c parses SCTP ERROR chunks and writes cause codes into a fixed-size stack-allocated ErlDrvTermData spec[] array without checking bounds. A remote attacker who has established an SCTP association to a listening port can send a single crafted SCTP ERROR chunk containing enough cause codes to overflow the stack buffer, crashing the VM. The attacker can only write 16-bit values interleaved with a fixed tag, so the overflow does not provide a controlled return address, limiting exploitation to Denial of Service. A crafted SCTP ERROR chunk may also leak bits and pieces of Erlang VM memory into the received error packet observed by the Erlang process. Such data is already readable by the user running the Erlang VM, so the disclosure scope is limited. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.13, OTP 28.5.0.2, and OTP 29.0.2, corresponding to erts from 6.0 before 15.2.7.9, 16.4.0.2, and 17.0.2. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to erts before 6.0, is affected is unknown.
Earn your free CTEM certification.
Learn to scope, prioritize, validate and mobilize fixes for CVEs like CVE-2026-32144 with a free CTEM certification.
Beginner / Practitioner / Program Leader
Explore certifications