CVE-2026-59696

uri_string does not bound the port component of a URI before integer conversion

MEDIUM
6.9
CVSS Score
Published: September 1, 2026 at 02:37 PM UTC
Updated: September 8, 2026 at 01:17 AM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorErlang /otp

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
MEDIUM6.9
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.7%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input vulnerability in Erlang/OTP stdlib allows a remote attacker to degrade availability by supplying a URI whose port component is a very long run of digits. uri_string:get_port/1 passes the port substring to binary_to_integer/1 with no length bound, catching only error:badarg, so a syntactically valid port of up to roughly 1.26 million digits converts successfully and costs the calling process hundreds of milliseconds of arbitrary-precision arithmetic. The conversion is reached from every authority-parsing path in uri_string:parse/1, including the host, registered-name, and IPv4 and IPv6 forms. parse/1 is the documented interface for parsing URIs, so any application that parses an attacker-supplied URI is exposed without further configuration. The conversion function is documented to accept integers of any size, so bounding the input is the caller's responsibility. This issue affects OTP from OTP 21.0 before OTP 27.3.4.17, from OTP 28.0 before OTP 28.5.0.6, and from OTP 29.0 before OTP 29.0.6, corresponding to stdlib from 3.5 before 6.2.2.5, from 7.0 before 7.3.0.2, and from 8.0 before 8.0.4.

Affected

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

21.0 ≤ v < 27.3.4.1728.0 ≤ v < 28.5.0.629.0 ≤ v < 29.0.63.5 ≤ v < 6.2.2.57.0 ≤ v < 7.3.0.28.0 ≤ v < 8.0.421.028.029.029a9dd0e17a97a3e6e46f0d08c6ba8f31db33f5e3.57.08.0
Affected range stops below 27.3.4.17, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 28.5.0.6, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 29.0.6, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 6.2.2.5, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 7.3.0.2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 8.0.4, 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

6.9MEDIUMEEF
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusDEFERRED
CWE
CWE-1284

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