CVE-2026-55953

TLS 1.2 and DTLS client accepts unoffered anonymous cipher suite, bypassing server authentication

HIGH
7.4
CVSS Score
Published: July 27, 2026 at 03:21 PM UTC
Updated: October 24, 2026 at 01:10 PM UTC
2 products affected across 1 vendorErlang /otpErlang /ssl

Using OTP by Erlang?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect OTP - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
HIGH7.4
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

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 17.0 before 27.3.4.15, 28.5.0.4, and 29.0.4 corresponding to ssl from 5.3.4 before 11.2.12.11, 11.6.0.4, and 11.7.4.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

17.0 ≤ v < 27.3.4.1528.0 ≤ v < 28.5.0.429.0 ≤ v < 29.0.411.311.717.028.029.05.3.484adefa331c4159d432d22840663c38f155cd4c1
Affected range stops below 11.2.12.11, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 11.6.0.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 11.7.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 27.3.4.15, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 28.5.0.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 29.0.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Vendor states this is fixed in 17.0 (unknown)
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.3.4 (unknown)
11.3 ≤ v < 11.6.0.411.7 ≤ v < 11.7.45.3.4 ≤ v < 11.2.12.11
Affected range stops below 11.2.12.11, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 11.6.0.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 11.7.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatableTotal impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

Attack Vector
NETWORK
Complexity
HIGH
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
HIGH
Integrity
HIGH
Availability
NONE
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusMODIFIED
CWE
CWE-757

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card