Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in the ssl application in Erlang/OTP allows a client that holds a certificate trusted by one SNI virtual host to authenticate to a second SNI virtual host on the same listener by resuming its TLS 1.2 session there.
A server that serves several SNI names from one listen socket through sni_fun or sni_hosts keeps one pre-TLS 1.3 session cache per listener and does not bind a cached session to the SNI name or client trust policy that established it. When an SNI option set switches to verify_peer without naming reuse_sessions, ssl_config:update_options/3 inherits the base listener's reuse_sessions value of true, so the default that disables reuse for client-authenticating servers does not apply. On an abbreviated handshake ssl_session:is_resumable/4 checks only that the cached session uses one of the current server certificates and carries some peer certificate, and never revalidates that certificate against the CA selected for the requested name. The names must share a server certificate, which is common with wildcard or multi-SAN certificates. TLS 1.3 does not use this cache and is not affected.
This issue affects OTP from OTP 18.0 before OTP 27.3.4.19, OTP 28.5.0.8, and OTP 29.1.2, corresponding to ssl from 7.0 before 11.2.12.14, 11.6.0.7, and 11.7.8.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it