CVE-2026-73812

inets, httpd: HTTP Request Smuggling via Transfer-Encoding and Content-Length

HIGH

8.3

CVSS Score

Published: September 1, 2026 at 02:42 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

Start Free Sign In

Severity

HIGH8.3

Exploit prediction

EPSS 0.5%

SSVC

No known exploit

Description

httpd function check_header/3 rejects duplicate Content-Length (per CVE-2026-23941) but never checks for the TE+CL co-presence that RFC 9112 §6.3 identifies as a probable smuggling attempt. handle_body/3 frames by chunked and silently discards Content-Length. A CL-preferring front-end paired with chunked-preferring inets creates a classic CL.TE front-end/back-end desync. 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 inets from 5.10 before 9.3.2.7, from 9.4 before 9.6.2.3, and from 9.7 before 9.7.2. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to inets before 5.10, is affected is unknown.

Affected

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

Erlang /otp · Erlang

95%

v < 27.3.4.1717.0 ≤ v < 27.3.4.1728.0 ≤ v < 28.5.0.629.0 ≤ v < 29.0.65.10 ≤ v < 9.3.2.79.4 ≤ v < 9.6.2.39.7 ≤ v < 9.7.217.0 28.0 29.0 5.1084adefa331c4159d432d22840663c38f155cd4c19.4 9.7

Vendor states this is fixed in 591dc00dc99dc2a426167a3b5257c0c94bd45e91 (fixed)

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 9.3.2.7, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

Affected range stops below 9.6.2.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

Affected range stops below 9.7.2, 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 5.10 (unknown)

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet. What the record does show:

Patch and advisory references

References (4)

Vendor Advisory

Source: cverecord

https://github.com/erlang/otp/security/advisories/GHSA-7j6m-4ffg-hg46

Source: cverecord

https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-73812.html

Source: cverecord

https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-73812

Patch

Source: cverecord

https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/591dc00dc99dc2a426167a3b5257c0c94bd45e91

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

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

CVSS

8.3HIGHEEF

Vector?

Quick Info

StatusDEFERRED

CWE

CWE-444

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.

Create account Sign in

Free plan, no card