{"id":"CVE-2026-32144","aliases":["DEBIAN-CVE-2026-32144","EEF-CVE-2026-32144","EUVD-2026-19604","GHSA-gxrm-pf64-99xm","SUSE-SU-2026:21374-1","UBUNTU-CVE-2026-32144","USN-8901-1","openSUSE-SU-2026:10947-1","openSUSE-SU-2026:20607-1"],"status":"published","title":"OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification","description":"Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification.\n\nThe 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.\n\nThis 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.\n\nThis vulnerability is associated with program files lib/public_key/src/pubkey_ocsp.erl and program routines pubkey_ocsp:is_authorized_responder/3.\n\nThis 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.","severity":{"version":"4.0","score":7.6,"vector":"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","level":"high","assessor":"cna","from":"cve"},"epss":{"day":"2026-11-10","score":0.00207,"percentile":0.10918,"model":"v2026.06.15"},"facts":{"in_kev":false,"known_exploited":false,"public_exploit":false,"fix_available":true},"cwes":["CWE-295","CWE-347"],"published":"2026-04-07T12:28:00Z","modified":"2026-10-28T02:31:13Z","fixes":[{"ecosystem":"Debian:13","package":"erlang","fixed_in":["1:27.3.4.1+dfsg-1+deb13u3"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Debian:14","package":"erlang","fixed_in":["1:27.3.4.10+dfsg-1"],"sources":["osv"]},{"ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"erlang","fixed_in":["1:27.3.4.6+dfsg-1ubuntu0.2"],"sources":["osv"]}],"affected":[{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:13","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:27.3.4.1+dfsg-1+deb13u3"}]}],"versions":["1:27.3.4.1+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.1+dfsg-1+deb13u1","1:27.3.4.1+dfsg-1+deb13u2"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Debian:14","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:27.3.4.10+dfsg-1"}]}],"versions":["1:27.3.4.1+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.3+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.4+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.6+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.8+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.9+dfsg-1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:25.10","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"}]}],"versions":["1:27.3+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:27.3+dfsg-1ubuntu1.1","1:27.3.4.1+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.1+dfsg-1build1","1:27.3.4.1+dfsg-1ubuntu0.1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:27.3.4.6+dfsg-1ubuntu0.2"}]}],"versions":["1:27.3.4.1+dfsg-1build1","1:27.3.4.3+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.4+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.6+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.6+dfsg-1ubuntu0.1"]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:16.b.3-dfsg-1ubuntu2.2+esm3"}]}],"versions":["1:16.b.1-dfsg-4ubuntu1","1:16.b.2-dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:16.b.2-dfsg-2ubuntu1","1:16.b.3-dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:16.b.3-dfsg-1ubuntu2","1:16.b.3-dfsg-1ubuntu2.1","1:16.b.3-dfsg-1ubuntu2.2","1:16.b.3-dfsg-1ubuntu2.2+esm1","1:16.b.3-dfsg-1ubuntu2.2+esm2"],"bundled":30},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:18.3-dfsg-1ubuntu3.1+esm4"}]}],"versions":["1:18.0-dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:18.0-dfsg-1ubuntu2","1:18.2-dfsg-2ubuntu1","1:18.3-dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:18.3-dfsg-1ubuntu2","1:18.3-dfsg-1ubuntu3","1:18.3-dfsg-1ubuntu3.1","1:18.3-dfsg-1ubuntu3.1+esm1","1:18.3-dfsg-1ubuntu3.1+esm2","1:18.3-dfsg-1ubuntu3.1+esm3"],"bundled":30},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:20.2.2+dfsg-1ubuntu2+esm4"}]}],"versions":["1:20.0.4+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:20.1.2+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:20.1.3+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:20.1.4+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:20.1.5+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:20.1.6+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:20.1.7+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:20.2.1+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:20.2.2+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:20.2.2+dfsg-1ubuntu2","1:20.2.2+dfsg-1ubuntu2+esm1","1:20.2.2+dfsg-1ubuntu2+esm2","1:20.2.2+dfsg-1ubuntu2+esm3"],"bundled":30},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:Pro:20.04:LTS","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:22.2.7+dfsg-1ubuntu0.5+esm3"}]}],"versions":["1:22.0.7+dfsg-1build1","1:22.2+dfsg-1","1:22.2.1+dfsg-1","1:22.2.2+dfsg-1","1:22.2.3+dfsg-1","1:22.2.3+dfsg-2","1:22.2.4+dfsg-1","1:22.2.7+dfsg-1","1:22.2.7+dfsg-1ubuntu0.2","1:22.2.7+dfsg-1ubuntu0.3","1:22.2.7+dfsg-1ubuntu0.4","1:22.2.7+dfsg-1ubuntu0.5","1:22.2.7+dfsg-1ubuntu0.5+esm1","1:22.2.7+dfsg-1ubuntu0.5+esm2"],"bundled":30},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:22.04:LTS","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:24.2.1+dfsg-1ubuntu0.8"}]}],"versions":["1:23.2.6+dfsg-1build1","1:24.1.1+dfsg-1","1:24.1.4+dfsg-1","1:24.1.5+dfsg-1","1:24.1.5+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:24.2+dfsg-1","1:24.2.1+dfsg-1","1:24.2.1+dfsg-1ubuntu0.1","1:24.2.1+dfsg-1ubuntu0.2","1:24.2.1+dfsg-1ubuntu0.3","1:24.2.1+dfsg-1ubuntu0.4","1:24.2.1+dfsg-1ubuntu0.5","1:24.2.1+dfsg-1ubuntu0.6","1:24.2.1+dfsg-1ubuntu0.7"],"bundled":30},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:24.04:LTS","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1ubuntu4.8"}]}],"versions":["1:25.2.3+dfsg-1","1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1","1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1ubuntu1","1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1ubuntu3","1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1ubuntu4","1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1ubuntu4.1","1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1ubuntu4.2","1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1ubuntu4.3","1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1ubuntu4.4","1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1ubuntu4.5","1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1ubuntu4.6","1:25.3.2.8+dfsg-1ubuntu4.7"],"bundled":30},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"Ubuntu:26.04:LTS","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"1:27.3.4.6+dfsg-1ubuntu0.2"}]}],"versions":["1:27.3.4.1+dfsg-1build1","1:27.3.4.3+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.4+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.6+dfsg-1","1:27.3.4.6+dfsg-1ubuntu0.1"],"bundled":30},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openSUSE:Tumbleweed","package":"erlang27","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"27.1.3-2.1"}]}],"bundled":14},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"openSUSE:Leap 16.0","package":"erlang","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"27.1.3-160000.4.1"}]}],"bundled":7}],"products":[{"vendor":"erlang","product":"erlang\\/otp"},{"vendor":"erlang","product":"erlang\\/public_key"},{"vendor":"erlang","product":"erlang\\/ssl"},{"vendor":"erlang","product":"otp"},{"vendor":"red hat","product":"red hat openstack platform 16.2"},{"vendor":"red hat","product":"red hat openstack platform 17.1"},{"vendor":"red hat","product":"red hat openstack platform 18.0"}],"references":[{"url":"https://github.com/erlang/otp/security/advisories/GHSA-gxrm-pf64-99xm","tags":["vendor-advisory","related","Mitigation","Third Party Advisory","advisory","report"]},{"url":"https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-32144.html","tags":["related","Mitigation","Vendor Advisory","web","report"]},{"url":"https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-32144","tags":["related","Third Party Advisory","web","report"]},{"url":"https://www.erlang.org/doc/system/versions.html#order-of-versions","tags":["x_version-scheme","Vendor Advisory","web","report"]},{"url":"https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/ac7ff528be857c5d35eb29c7f24106e3a16d4891","tags":["patch","Patch","fix","report"]},{"url":"https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/49033a6d93a5be0ee0dce04e1fb8b4ae7de1e0c0","tags":["patch","Patch","fix","report"]},{"url":"https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-32144","tags":["vdb-entry","x_refsource_REDHAT","advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2455896","tags":["issue-tracking","x_refsource_REDHAT","report"]},{"url":"https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-32144.json","tags":["x_sadp-csaf-vex","web"]},{"url":"https://github.com","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/tree/main/cves/2026/32xxx/CVE-2026-32144.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32144","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/erlang/otp","tags":["package"]},{"url":"https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-32144","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2026/suse-su-202621374-1/","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1258663","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1259681","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1259682","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1259687","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1261726","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1261728","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1261734","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://bugzilla.suse.com/1262288","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-21620","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-23941","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-23942","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-23943","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-28808","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-28810","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-32144","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-32144","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-32144","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/10873","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-8901-1","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2025-4748","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2025-26618","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2025-30211","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-21620","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-23942","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-23943","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-28808","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-28810","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-32147","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-42789","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-42790","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-42791","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-47078","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-48855","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-48856","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-48858","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-48860","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-49759","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-49760","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-53422","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-54886","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-54887","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-54891","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-55950","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-55952","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-65634","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-68956","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-74994","tags":["report"]},{"url":"https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-89422","tags":["report"]},{"url":"","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-4748","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-48038","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-48039","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-32147","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42789","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42790","tags":["web"]},{"url":"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-42791","tags":["web"]}],"sources":{"cve":[{"id":"CVE-2026-32144","title":"OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification","description":"Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification.\n\nThe 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.\n\nThis 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.\n\nThis vulnerability is associated with program files lib/public_key/src/pubkey_ocsp.erl and program routines pubkey_ocsp:is_authorized_responder/3.\n\nThis 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.","status":"published","published":"2026-04-07T12:28:00.767Z","modified":"2026-07-24T14:14:52.819Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":7.6,"vector":"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","level":"high","assessor":"cna"},{"version":"3.1","score":7.4,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"high","assessor":"adp"}],"cwes":["CWE-295","CWE-347"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:19:57.100857Z"}],"euvd":[{"id":"EUVD-2026-19604","description":"Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification.\n\nThe 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.\n\nThis 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.\n\nThis vulnerability is associated with program files lib/public_key/src/pubkey_ocsp.erl and program routines pubkey_ocsp:is_authorized_responder/3.\n\nThis 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.","status":"published","published":"2026-04-07T12:28:00Z","modified":"2026-07-24T14:14:52Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":7.6,"vector":"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","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T18:19:40.671085Z"}],"nvd":[{"id":"CVE-2026-32144","description":"Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification.\n\nThe 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.\n\nThis 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.\n\nThis vulnerability is associated with program files lib/public_key/src/pubkey_ocsp.erl and program routines pubkey_ocsp:is_authorized_responder/3.\n\nThis 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.","status":"published","published":"2026-04-07T13:16:46.57Z","modified":"2026-10-26T22:10:00.163Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":7.6,"vector":"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","level":"high","assessor":"secondary"},{"version":"3.1","score":7.4,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"high","assessor":"primary"},{"version":"3.1","score":7.4,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"high","assessor":"secondary"}],"cwes":["CWE-295","CWE-347"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:12:13.1424Z"}],"osv":[{"id":"CVE-2026-32144","title":"OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification","description":"Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification.\n\nThe 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.\n\nThis 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.\n\nThis vulnerability is associated with program files lib/public_key/src/pubkey_ocsp.erl and program routines pubkey_ocsp:is_authorized_responder/3.\n\nThis 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.","status":"published","published":"2026-04-07T12:28:00.767Z","modified":"2026-11-11T10:30:45.451116348Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":7.6,"vector":"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","level":"high"}],"cwes":["CWE-295"],"updated_at":"2026-11-11T11:06:43.834798Z"},{"id":"DEBIAN-CVE-2026-32144","description":"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.","status":"published","published":"2026-04-07T13:16:46.57Z","modified":"2026-10-27T09:47:40.805361886Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":7.4,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:45:54.232518Z"},{"id":"EEF-CVE-2026-32144","title":"OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification","description":"## Summary\n\nImproper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public\\_key (pubkey\\_ocsp module) allows OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification.\n\nThe 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.\n\nThis 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.\n\nThis vulnerability is associated with program files lib/public\\_key/src/pubkey\\_ocsp.erl and program routines pubkey\\_ocsp:is\\_authorized\\_responder/3.\n\nThis 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.\n\n## Workarounds\n\nFor SSL users:\n\n\\* Do not enable OCSP validation setting (current default is {stapling, no\\_staple})\n\\* Use CRL-based revocation checking by setting the {crl\\_check, true} SSL option instead\n\nFor applications using public\\_key:pkix\\_ocsp\\_validate/5 directly:\n\n\\* Pass {is\\_trusted\\_responder\\_fun, Fun} option with a function that validates trusted responder certificates\n\\* Restrict OCSP responder access to trusted endpoints via network controls (only applicable if you control the OCSP infrastructure)\n\n## Configurations\n\nSSL/TLS must be configured with OCSP stapling enabled (e.g., {stapling, staple}), or the application must call public\\_key:pkix\\_ocsp\\_validate/5 directly. OCSP stapling is disabled by default ({stapling, no\\_staple}).","status":"published","published":"2026-04-07T12:28:00.767Z","modified":"2026-09-08T02:45:03.748978486Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":7.6,"vector":"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","level":"high"}],"cwes":["CWE-295"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:46:33.047032Z"},{"id":"UBUNTU-CVE-2026-32144","description":"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.","status":"published","published":"2026-04-07T13:16:00Z","modified":"2026-10-08T19:47:08.14169475Z","cvss":[{"version":"4.0","score":7.6,"vector":"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","level":"high"},{"version":"3.1","score":7.4,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"high"},{"version":"3.1","score":7.4,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:56:16.036833Z"},{"id":"openSUSE-SU-2026:10947-1","title":"erlang27-27.1.3-2.1 on GA media","description":"These are all security issues fixed in the erlang27-27.1.3-2.1 package on the GA media of openSUSE Tumbleweed.","status":"published","published":"2026-06-03T00:00:00Z","modified":"2026-06-04T09:00:08.489232736Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:58:38.95195Z"},{"id":"openSUSE-SU-2026:20607-1","title":"Security update for erlang","description":"This update for erlang fixes the following issues:\n\nSecurity issues fixed:\n\n- CVE-2026-21620: improper isolation and compartmentalization can lead to TFTP relative path traversal and remote\n  arbitrary reads/writes (bsc#1258663).\n- CVE-2026-23941: improper handling of duplicate Content-Length headers in Erlang OTP can lead to HTTP request\n  smuggling (bsc#1259687).\n- CVE-2026-23942: improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory in the SFTP server can lead to path\n  traversal (bsc#1259681).\n- CVE-2026-23943: improper handling of highly compressed data in Erlang OTP ssh can lead to denial of service\n  (bsc#1259682).\n- CVE-2026-28808: incorrect authorization can lead to unauthenticated access to protected CGI scripts (bsc#1261728).\n- CVE-2026-28810: predictable DNS transaction IDs can lead to DNS cache poisoning (bsc#1261726).\n- CVE-2026-32144: missing signature verification can lead to OCSP authorization bypass and information disclosure\n  (bsc#1261734).\n\nOther updates and bugfixes:\n\n- jinterface: allow to build determenistic OtpErlang.jar (bsc#1262288).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-04-22T10:52:20Z","modified":"2026-04-24T08:16:29.068648Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:58:41.463445Z"},{"id":"SUSE-SU-2026:21374-1","title":"Security update for erlang","description":"This update for erlang fixes the following issues:\n\nSecurity issues fixed:\n\n- CVE-2026-21620: improper isolation and compartmentalization can lead to TFTP relative path traversal and remote\n  arbitrary reads/writes (bsc#1258663).\n- CVE-2026-23941: improper handling of duplicate Content-Length headers in Erlang OTP can lead to HTTP request\n  smuggling (bsc#1259687).\n- CVE-2026-23942: improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory in the SFTP server can lead to path\n  traversal (bsc#1259681).\n- CVE-2026-23943: improper handling of highly compressed data in Erlang OTP ssh can lead to denial of service\n  (bsc#1259682).\n- CVE-2026-28808: incorrect authorization can lead to unauthenticated access to protected CGI scripts (bsc#1261728).\n- CVE-2026-28810: predictable DNS transaction IDs can lead to DNS cache poisoning (bsc#1261726).\n- CVE-2026-32144: missing signature verification can lead to OCSP authorization bypass and information disclosure\n  (bsc#1261734).\n\nOther updates and bugfixes:\n\n- jinterface: allow to build determenistic OtpErlang.jar (bsc#1262288).\n","status":"published","published":"2026-04-22T11:46:09Z","modified":"2026-04-29T18:23:58.002335Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:54:02.312556Z"},{"id":"USN-8901-1","title":"erlang vulnerabilities","description":"Wander Nauta discovered that Erlang incorrectly handled absolute paths when\nextracting zip archives. An attacker could possibly use this issue to write\narbitrary files outside of the intended directory. This issue only affected\nUbuntu 16.04 LTS, Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, and Ubuntu 20.04 LTS. (CVE-2025-4748)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang SFTP server did not properly limit the\nsize of packets. A remote attacker could possibly use this issue to cause\nErlang to use excessive resources, leading to a denial of service. This\nissue only affected Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, and\nUbuntu 18.04 LTS. (CVE-2025-26618)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang SSH server did not properly limit the\nlength of algorithm names in key exchange messages. A remote attacker could\npossibly use this issue to cause Erlang to use excessive resources, leading\nto a denial of service. This issue only affected Ubuntu 14.04 LTS,\nUbuntu 16.04 LTS, and Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. (CVE-2025-30211)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang TFTP server incorrectly handled certain\nfile paths. A remote attacker could possibly use this issue to access files\noutside of the intended directory. (CVE-2026-21620)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang SFTP server incorrectly validated paths\nagainst the configured root directory. An authenticated user could possibly\nuse this issue to access files outside of the root directory.\n(CVE-2026-23942)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang SSH server enabled zlib compression by\ndefault and did not limit the size of decompressed data. A remote attacker\ncould possibly use this issue to cause Erlang to use excessive resources,\nleading to a denial of service. (CVE-2026-23943)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang HTTP server incorrectly applied directory\naccess controls to CGI scripts served via script aliases. A remote attacker\ncould possibly use this issue to bypass authentication and access protected\nCGI scripts. (CVE-2026-28808)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang DNS resolver used predictable transaction\nIDs and did not randomize source ports. A remote attacker could possibly\nuse this issue to perform DNS cache poisoning attacks. This issue only\naffected Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, Ubuntu 24.04 LTS, and Ubuntu 26.04 LTS.\n(CVE-2026-28810)\n\nIt was discovered that Erlang did not verify the signatures of designated\nOCSP responder certificates. A remote attacker could possibly use this\nissue to forge OCSP responses and bypass certificate revocation checks.\nThis issue only affected Ubuntu 26.04 LTS. (CVE-2026-32144)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang SFTP server incorrectly handled file\nattribute changes on open file handles. An authenticated user could\npossibly use this issue to modify the attributes of files outside of the\nroot directory. (CVE-2026-32147)\n\nIt was discovered that Erlang incorrectly allowed non-CA certificates to\nact as intermediate certificate issuers. A remote attacker could possibly\nuse this issue to forge certificate chains. (CVE-2026-42789)\n\nIt was discovered that Erlang incorrectly handled DNS name constraints\nduring hostname verification. A remote attacker could possibly use this\nissue to bypass certificate validation. This issue only affected\nUbuntu 18.04 LTS, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS, Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, Ubuntu 24.04 LTS, and\nUbuntu 26.04 LTS. (CVE-2026-42790)\n\nIt was discovered that Erlang did not check the validity period of OCSP\nresponder certificates. A remote attacker could possibly use this issue to\nforge OCSP responses using an expired responder certificate. This issue\nonly affected Ubuntu 26.04 LTS. (CVE-2026-42791)\n\nIt was discovered that Erlang incorrectly handled relative paths when\nextracting zip archives. An attacker could possibly use this issue to write\narbitrary files outside of the intended directory. This issue only affected\nUbuntu 18.04 LTS, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS, Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, Ubuntu 24.04 LTS, and\nUbuntu 26.04 LTS. (CVE-2026-47078)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang SFTP server exposed absolute paths when\nreading symbolic links. An authenticated user could possibly use this issue\nto obtain sensitive information. (CVE-2026-48855)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang HTTP client forwarded authorization\nheaders on cross-origin redirects. A malicious HTTP server could possibly\nuse this issue to obtain sensitive information. (CVE-2026-48856)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang FTP client did not validate the IP\naddress in passive mode responses. A malicious FTP server could possibly\nuse this issue to perform server-side request forgery attacks.\n(CVE-2026-48858)\n\nIt was discovered that Erlang checked the local address instead of the peer\naddress when enforcing the allowlist for distribution over TLS. A remote\nattacker could possibly use this issue to bypass access restrictions. This\nissue only affected Ubuntu 26.04 LTS. (CVE-2026-48860)\n\nIt was discovered that Erlang incorrectly handled certain SCTP ERROR\nchunks, leading to a buffer overflow. A remote attacker could possibly use\nthis issue to cause Erlang to crash, resulting in a denial of service.\n(CVE-2026-49759)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang erl_interface library incorrectly handled\nprinting very large integers, leading to a buffer overflow. An attacker\ncould possibly use this issue to cause Erlang to crash or execute arbitrary\ncode. (CVE-2026-49760)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang SFTP server incorrectly handled certain\npath resolution requests. An authenticated user could possibly use this\nissue to determine the existence of files outside of the root directory.\n(CVE-2026-53422)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang SFTP server incorrectly handled extended\nchannel data, leading to an infinite loop. An authenticated user could\npossibly use this issue to cause a denial of service. (CVE-2026-54886)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang DTLS server used a predictable cookie\nsecret on startup. A remote attacker could possibly use this issue to\nbypass source address verification. This issue only affected\nUbuntu 18.04 LTS, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS, Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, Ubuntu 24.04 LTS, and\nUbuntu 26.04 LTS. (CVE-2026-54887)\n\nIt was discovered that Erlang TLS clients incorrectly accepted application\ndata before the handshake was completed. A remote attacker could possibly\nuse this issue to inject arbitrary data into TLS connections.\n(CVE-2026-54891)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang DTLS server contained a race condition\nwhen handling rapid client reconnections. A remote attacker could possibly\nuse this issue to cause Erlang to crash, resulting in a denial of service.\nThis issue only affected Ubuntu 24.04 LTS and Ubuntu 26.04 LTS.\n(CVE-2026-55950)\n\nIt was discovered that Erlang did not properly validate TLS 1.3 pre-shared\nkey extensions. A remote attacker could possibly use this issue to cause\nErlang to crash, resulting in a denial of service. This issue only affected\nUbuntu 20.04 LTS, Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, Ubuntu 24.04 LTS, and Ubuntu 26.04 LTS.\n(CVE-2026-55952)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang ASN.1 decoder incorrectly handled certain\nobject identifiers. A remote attacker could possibly use this issue to\ncause Erlang to use excessive resources, leading to a denial of service.\n(CVE-2026-65634)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang SSH server did not properly limit the\nnumber of open channels. An authenticated user could possibly use this\nissue to cause Erlang to use excessive resources, leading to a denial of\nservice. This issue only affected Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, Ubuntu 18.04 LTS,\nUbuntu 20.04 LTS, Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, Ubuntu 24.04 LTS, and Ubuntu 26.04 LTS.\n(CVE-2026-68956)\n\nIt was discovered that the Erlang HTTP server incorrectly shared users and\ngroups between directories when using dets or mnesia authentication\nbackends. A remote attacker could possibly use this issue to bypass\nauthentication and access protected directories. (CVE-2026-74994)\n\nIt was discovered that Erlang TLS clients incorrectly accepted unsolicited\nTLS 1.3 pre-shared keys from servers. A remote attacker could possibly use\nthis issue to impersonate servers. This issue only affected\nUbuntu 20.04 LTS, Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, Ubuntu 24.04 LTS, and Ubuntu 26.04 LTS.\n(CVE-2026-89422)","status":"published","published":"2026-10-08T12:01:56Z","modified":"2026-10-08T19:58:53.589918012Z","updated_at":"2026-11-02T16:58:26.907654Z"}]}}