CVE-2026-58227

TLS/DTLS denial of service via unbounded recursion on cross-signed peer certificate chain

HIGH
7.5
CVSS Score
Published: July 27, 2026 at 02:39 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
HIGH7.5
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.4%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

The Erlang/OTP ssl application does not detect cycles when reconstructing an incomplete peer certificate chain during a TLS or DTLS handshake. In ssl_certificate:handle_incomplete_chain/5, the received chain is passed to ssl_certificate:build_certificate_chain/5, which walks issuer relationships via ssl_certificate:do_certificate_chain/7 with no cycle detection and no depth limit. When the peer supplies two mutually cross-signed certificates in unordered form (A issues B, B issues A), the issuer lookup alternates between the two certificates and the pair of functions recurses indefinitely, growing the call stack and chain accumulator without bound. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a crafted certificate chain in a TLS or DTLS Certificate handshake message to exhaust available memory and crash the BEAM node. Only a TCP connection and a partial handshake are required; no authentication or completed handshake is needed, and both TLS/DTLS servers and clients are affected when processing peer certificate messages. This issue affects OTP from 23.2 before 27.3.4.15, 28.5.0.4 and 29.0.4 corresponding to ssl from 10.2 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.

23.2 ≤ v < 27.3.4.1528.0 ≤ v < 28.5.0.429.0 ≤ v < 29.0.410.223.2addc42df113f8f15fc20e9dff45490b3ce0d3d6b
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
10.2 ≤ v < 11.2.12.1111.3 ≤ v < 11.6.0.411.7 ≤ v < 11.7.4
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 exploitAutomatablePartial impact

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

CVSS

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

Quick Info

StatusANALYZED
CWE
CWE-674

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