CVE-2026-70409

eldap does not bound the port component of a referral URL before integer conversion

MEDIUM
6.3
CVSS Score
Published: September 1, 2026 at 02:51 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
MEDIUM6.3
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.6%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input vulnerability in Erlang/OTP eldap allows a malicious or compromised LDAP server to degrade availability by returning a referral URL whose port component is a very long run of digits. eldap:parse_port/2 passes the port substring straight to list_to_integer/1 with no length bound. The surrounding try ... catch only rejects a value that fails to parse, so a syntactically valid port of up to roughly 1.26 million digits converts successfully and costs the caller hundreds of milliseconds of arbitrary-precision arithmetic per referral. The conversion function itself is documented to accept integers of any size, so bounding the input is the caller's responsibility. Reaching the flaw requires the application to pass a server-supplied referral to eldap:parse_ldap_url/1, which eldap never calls itself: referral strings are returned to the caller unparsed. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 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 eldap from 1.0.3 before 1.2.14.2, from 1.2.15 before 1.2.16.1, and from 1.3 before 1.3.1.

Affected

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

1.0.3 ≤ v < 1.2.14.21.2.15 ≤ v < 1.2.16.11.3 ≤ v < 1.3.117.0 ≤ v < 27.3.4.1728.0 ≤ v < 28.5.0.629.0 ≤ v < 29.0.61.0.31.2.151.317.028.029.0d8dbf15de4fa1a08b9a05e7d8e08fdb025fe1dc3
Affected range stops below 1.2.14.2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 1.2.16.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 1.3.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
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

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

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

CVSS

6.3MEDIUMEEF
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