CriticalCVE-2026-89422

    Erlang OTP: Key Exchange without Entity Authentication (CVE-2026-89422)

    Published Last modified Sources: Debian, CVE.org, OSV, Msrc Update Guide, BSI

    What is affected, what to do

    Key Exchange without Entity Authentication vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ssl allows a peer that answers a TLS 1.3 client connection to impersonate the intended server. A pre_shared_key extension in the ServerHello that the client never offered causes the client to complete the handshake without validating the server's certificate, so ssl:connect returns {ok, Socket} against a peer holding no certificate, no private key and no prior session. tls_client_connection_1_3:handle_server_hello/2 passes the received extension to tls_gen_connection_1_3:handle_resumption/2, which sets resumption = true on its mere presence without checking that the client offered a PSK. tls_handshake_1_3:get_pre_shared_key/4 meanwhile falls back to the all-zero "no PSK" value and keys the handshake with the ordinary non-PSK schedule, so the attacker's own ephemeral key suffices.

    Update Erlang/OTP to version 29.1.1.

    Affected
    • Erlang OTP gte 22.2..*
    • Erlang OTP gte 9.5..*

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

    Metrics

    9.3

    Priority

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

    Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v4

    9.3

    CVSS v4

    Severity Critical on the scale from 0 to 10.

    Source: Debian, CVE.org, OSV, Msrc Update Guide, BSI

    0.5 %

    EPSS score

    Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.

    Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 39.9

    Show all metrics
    Severity
    Critical
    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
    87.33 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
    9.3 Methodology
    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
    9.3
    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
    0.5 %
    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
    39.9
    High — this CVE ranks above the median of all CVEs scored today (rank ≥ 36%).
    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 · automatable · Technical impact: total
    Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 22 September 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-322

    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

    Key Exchange without Entity Authentication vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ssl allows a peer that answers a TLS 1.3 client connection to impersonate the intended server. A pre_shared_key extension in the ServerHello that the client never offered causes the client to complete the handshake without validating the server's certificate, so ssl:connect returns {ok, Socket} against a peer holding no certificate, no private key and no prior session. tls_client_connection_1_3:handle_server_hello/2 passes the received extension to tls_gen_connection_1_3:handle_resumption/2, which sets resumption = true on its mere presence without checking that the client offered a PSK. tls_handshake_1_3:get_pre_shared_key/4 meanwhile falls back to the all-zero "no PSK" value and keys the handshake with the ordinary non-PSK schedule, so the attacker's own ephemeral key suffices. The resumption flag then routes maybe_resumption/1 straight to wait_finished, skipping the certificate-handling states, so certificate path validation, verify_fun, hostname verification, partial_chain, CRL checking and OCSP stapling are all bypassed. The default client configuration is affected; clients restricted to TLS 1.2 are not. This issue affects OTP from OTP 22.2 before OTP 27.3.4.18, OTP 28.5.0.7, and OTP 29.1.1, corresponding to ssl from 9.5 before 11.2.12.13, 11.6.0.6, and 11.7.7.

    Source: Debian Security Advisories, NVD (NIST), cvelistv5, OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities), Microsoft Security Update Guide, BSI WID Portal, BSI CSAF

    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
    • ≥ 9.5
    • ≥ 22.2
    • —
    • —
    Open SourceErlang/OTP
    • < 29.1.1
    • < 28.5.0.7
    • < 27.3.4.18
    • 29.1.1
    • 28.5.0.7
    • 27.3.4.18

    Vendors and products

    Affected operating systems

    Affected operating systems
    Linuxdebianerlangtrixie

    Weakness classes (CWE)

    • CWE-322Key Exchange without Entity Authentication

      Base

      The product performs a key exchange with an actor without verifying the identity of that actor.

      Entry at MITRE CWE-322

    References & sources

    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 modifiedCISA ADP

      CISA assessment (SSVC): exploitation: none known, automatable: yes

      Show the original change
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      SSVC assessmentadded
      —
      {"id":"CVE-2026-89422","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"none"},{"automatable":"yes"},{"technicalImpact":"total"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-09-22T13:08:04.474621Z"}

      Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

    2. ReceivedEEF

      CVSS V4.0: AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

      Weakness type: CWE-322

      Description added or changed

      Show 12 original changes
      Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
      TypeActionBeforeAfter
      Descriptionadded
      —
      Key Exchange without Entity Authentication vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ssl allows a peer that answers a TLS 1.3 client connection to impersonate the intended server. A pre_shared_key extension in the ServerHello that the client never offered causes the client to complete the handshake without validating the server's certificate, so ssl:connect returns {ok, Socket} against a peer holding no certificate, no private key and no prior session. tls_client_connection_1_3:handle_server_hello/2 passes the received extension to tls_gen_connection_1_3:handle_resumption/2, which sets resumption = true on its mere presence without checking that the client offered a PSK. tls_handshake_1_3:get_pre_shared_key/4 meanwhile falls back to the all-zero "no PSK" value and keys the handshake with the ordinary non-PSK schedule, so the attacker's own ephemeral key suffices. The resumption flag then routes maybe_resumption/1 straight to wait_finished, skipping the certificate-handling states, so certificate path validation, verify_fun, hostname verification, partial_chain, CRL checking and OCSP stapling are all bypassed. The default client configuration is affected; clients restricted to TLS 1.2 are not. This issue affects OTP from OTP 22.2 before OTP 27.3.4.18, OTP 28.5.0.7, and OTP 29.1.1, corresponding to ssl from 9.5 before 11.2.12.13, 11.6.0.6, and 11.7.7.
      CVSSadded
      —
      AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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:X
      Weakness type (CWE)added
      —
      CWE-322
      Affected versions (publisher)added
      —
      New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/89xxx/CVE-2026-89422.json">CVE-2026-89422</a>
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-89422.html
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/21b8a1b0ad0adf200682b3854bc50114ab2b8c62
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/98c66c858113949c4262d26cd7d426c4b09d2b35
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/afec5156361bb50d3607c7c1a453c19b9149b324
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/fd1d9d07fc92ec0d59f96dfb66182195882bb7dd
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://github.com/erlang/otp/security/advisories/GHSA-rgxr-4g4w-j875
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-89422
      Referenceadded
      —
      https://www.erlang.org/doc/system/versions.html#order-of-versions

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

    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-2026-89422
    <a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-89422"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-89422.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-89422 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>