HighCVE-2026-32144

    OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification (CVE-2026-32144)

    Published Last modified Sources: Debian, BSI, CVE.org, OSV, EUVD

    What is affected, what to do

    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.

    Update erlang\/otp to version 28.4.2, erlang\/public_key to version 1.17.1.2, erlang\/ssl to version 11.5.4.

    Affected
    • Erlang OTP gte 1.16..*
    • Erlang OTP gte 11.2..*
    • Erlang OTP gte 27.0..*

    Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability

    Metrics

    7.6

    Priority

    XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.

    Source: NVD, CVSS v4

    7.4

    CVSS v3

    Severity High on the scale from 0 to 10.

    Source: Debian, BSI, CVE.org, OSV, EUVD

    0.2 %

    EPSS score

    Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.

    Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 9.8

    Show all metrics
    Severity
    High
    Priority (0–325)

    The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?

    Read in glossary
    54.73 Methodology
    Exploit maturity

    An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.

    Read in glossary
    no public PoC known
    XIEM Effective CVSS

    XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.

    Read in glossary
    7.6 Methodology
    CVSS v3

    CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.

    Read in glossary
    7.4
    CVSS v4

    CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.

    Read in glossary
    7.6
    EPSS score

    The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.

    Read in glossary
    0.2 %
    Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
    EPSS percentile

    The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.

    Read in glossary
    9.8
    Low — this CVE sits in the lower 10% of all CVEs scored today.
    KEV status

    The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.

    Read in glossary
    —
    Published
    CISA assessment (SSVC)
    Exploitation: none known · not automatable · Technical impact: total
    Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 7 April 2026
    CWE

    CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.

    Read in glossary
    CWE-295, CWE-347

    Detection rules

    No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.

    Classification under NIS2 and CRA

    Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.

    NIS2

    NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.

    Read in glossary
    High technical severity: assess and remediate the vulnerability in vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2 and document the decision.
    CRA

    The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.

    Read in glossary
    From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
    ISO/IEC 27001

    ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.

    Read in glossary
    Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.

    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.

    Source: Debian Security Advisories, BSI WID Portal, BSI CSAF, NVD (NIST), CVE.org (MITRE), OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities), cvelistv5, ENISA EUVD

    Affected products

    The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.

    Affected products
    Affected versionsFixed in
    ErlangOTP
    • ≥ 1.16
    • ≥ 27.0
    • ≥ 11.2
    • —
    • —
    • —
    erlangerlang\/otp
    • 28.0 – < 28.4.2
    • 27.0 – < 27.3.4.10
    • 28.4.2
    • 27.3.4.10
    erlangerlang\/public_key
    • 1.16 – < 1.17.1.2
    • 1.18 – < 1.20.3
    • 1.17.1.2
    • 1.20.3
    erlangerlang\/ssl
    • 11.3 – < 11.5.4
    • 11.2 – < 11.2.12.7
    • 11.5.4
    • 11.2.12.7
    MicrosoftAzure Linux
    • azl3
    • —
    Open SourceErlang/OTP
    • < 27.3.4.10
    • < 28.4.2
    • 27.3.4.10
    • 28.4.2
    Open SourceErlang/OTP public key
    • < 1.20.3
    • < 1.17.1.2
    • 1.20.3
    • 1.17.1.2
    Open SourceErlang/OTP ssl
    • < 11.2.12.7
    • < 11.5.4
    • 11.2.12.7
    • 11.5.4

    Vendors and products

    Affected operating systems

    Affected operating systems
    Linuxdebianerlangtrixie

    Weakness classes (CWE)

    • CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation

      Base

      The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

      Entry at MITRE CWE-295

    • CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

      Base

      The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.

      Entry at MITRE CWE-347

    References & sources

    • github.comerlang/otp/security/advisories/GHSA-gxrm-pf64-99xmadvisory, Vendor advisory, related, Mitigation, Third-party advisory
    • cna.erlef.orgcves/CVE-2026-32144.htmlweb, related, Mitigation, Vendor advisory
    • erlang.orgdoc/system/versions.htmlweb, x_version-scheme, Vendor advisory
    • github.comerlang/otp/commit/ac7ff528be857c5d35eb29c7f24106e3a16d4891fix, Patch, Patch
    • github.comerlang/otp/commit/49033a6d93a5be0ee0dce04e1fb8b4ae7de1e0c0fix, Patch, Patch
    • OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-32144related, Third-party advisory
    • access.redhat.comsecurity/cve/CVE-2026-32144Vulnerability database, x_refsource_REDHAT
    • bugzilla.redhat.comRHBZ#2455896Issue tracking, x_refsource_REDHAT
    • security.access.redhat.comdata/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-32144.jsonx_sadp-csaf-vex

    Changes to this CVE

    Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).

    1. Record modifiedEEF

      Description added or changed

      Show the original change
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      Descriptionchanged
      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 until OTP 28.4.2 and 27.3.4.10 corresponding to public_key from 1.16 until 1.20.3 and 1.17.1.2, and ssl from 11.2 until 11.5.4 and 11.2.12.7.
      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.

      Source identifier: 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db

    One NVD translation into another language is hidden.

    Embed badge

    Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.

    Badge preview for CVE-2026-32144
    <a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-32144"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-32144.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-32144 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>