LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2026-55953: TLS 1.2 and DTLS client accepts unoffered anonymous cipher suite, bypassing server authentication

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 OTP R13B03 before OTP 27.3.4.15, from OTP 28.0 before OTP 28.5.0.4, and from OTP 29.0 before OTP 29.0.4, corresponding to ssl from 3.10.7 before 11.2.12.11, from 11.3 before 11.6.0.4, and from 11.7 before 11.7.4. Whether OTP before OTP R13B03, corresponding to ssl before 3.10.7, is affected is unknown.

CriticalCVSS 9.1Not KEV-listedUpdated
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysiscritical

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

Affected Erlang/OTP clients can be tricked by an attacker controlling the network path into creating an encrypted connection without authenticating the server. The attacker could then read or alter application traffic. TLS 1.3 clients are not affected, but vulnerable TLS 1.2, earlier TLS, and DTLS clients require prompt attention.

Executive priority

Treat as an urgent remediation for affected clients handling sensitive or high-value traffic, especially across networks where interception is plausible. The flaw defeats configured certificate authorities, peer verification, and hostname checking without alerting the application. Rapidly inventory TLS client usage, upgrade exposed systems, and confirm the deployed runtime—not merely application dependencies—contains the fix.

Technical view

The TLS 1.2-and-earlier and DTLS client accepts a ServerHello cipher suite without confirming it appeared in ClientHello. An on-path attacker can select an unoffered anonymous DH or ECDH suite, eliminating certificate and hostname checks while ssl:connect reports success. Fixed releases add the required membership validation. The TLS 1.3 path already performs it.

Likely exposure

Exposure exists where Erlang/OTP ssl operates as a TLS 1.2-or-earlier or DTLS client on an affected release. Risk is greatest across internet, shared, wireless, or otherwise untrusted network paths. Exploitation requires an on-path position. TLS 1.3-only client connections are unaffected. Status before OTP R13B03 is unknown.

Exploitation context

The source bundle describes a practical man-in-the-middle condition requiring network-path control, but provides no evidence of active exploitation. The CVE is not listed as KEV in the supplied data. No credentials or user interaction are required once the attacker is on path, and successful exploitation compromises traffic confidentiality and integrity.

Researcher notes

This is classified as CWE-757. The vulnerable client path installs the server-selected suite without checking the original offer; TLS 1.3 performs that check. Anonymous DH or ECDH selection removes certificate-based authentication. Three referenced commits provide patches. The supplied sources do not establish public proof-of-concept availability, exploitation in the wild, or impact before OTP R13B03.

Mitigation direction

  • Upgrade to OTP 27.3.4.15, 28.5.0.4, 29.0.4, or an appropriate later supported release.
  • Prioritize clients using TLS 1.2, earlier TLS, or DTLS across untrusted network paths.
  • Where operationally safe, require TLS 1.3 until upgrades finish; this does not address DTLS connections.
  • Review the vendor advisory and referenced patches before applying branch-specific backports.
  • Move releases before OTP R13B03 to a fixed supported release because their affected status is unknown.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory deployed Erlang/OTP and ssl versions, including embedded runtimes and application containers.
  • Identify applications making outbound TLS 1.2, earlier TLS, or DTLS connections through the ssl client.
  • Confirm installed versions meet the documented fixed release thresholds after remediation.
  • Verify clients reject server-selected cipher suites absent from their offered list using authorized non-production testing.
  • Flag releases before OTP R13B03 for manual review because the available evidence does not establish their status.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
7

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · low confidence lookup

CWE-757: Exact CWE lookup

Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2026-55953 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
Critical
CVSS
9.1 (4.0)
Known Exploited
No
Published

Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

1CVSS vectors
3Timeline events
1ADP providers
8Source links

SSVC decision data

CISA-ADPCISA Coordinator
Timestamp
Version
2.0.3
Exploitation: noneAutomatable: noTechnical Impact: total

CVSS vector scores

1 official score

We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
9.1CVSS 4.0CriticalCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NEEF

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 4.0 score

9.1Critical
CVSS 4.0 vector shape for CVE-2026-55953Attack VectorAttack ComplexityAttack RequirementsPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionVS ConfidentialityVS IntegrityVS AvailabilitySS ConfidentialitySS IntegritySS Availability

Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Attack Requirements
NonePresent
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NonePassiveActive
VS Confidentiality
HighLowNone
VS Integrity
HighLowNone
VS Availability
HighLowNone
SS Confidentiality
HighLowNone
SS Integrity
HighLowNone
SS Availability
HighLowNone

Vulnerability timeline

Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.

  1. CVE reservedCVE Program

    The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.

  2. CVE publishedCVE Program

    The CVE record was published.

  3. CVE updatedCVE Program

    The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.

ADP provider summaries

CISA-ADPCISA ADP Vulnrichment
other:ssvc
Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
ErlangOTPotp, 0, R13B03, 28.0, 29.0unaffected
ErlangOTPssl, 0, 3.10.7, 11.3, 11.7unaffected
ErlangOTPerlang/otp, 84adefa331c4159d432d22840663c38f155cd4c1unaffected
Weakness

CWE details

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-757 · source CWE mapping

Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade')

Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.