Observable Response Discrepancy vulnerability in Erlang OTP ssh (ssh_sftpd module) allows an authenticated SFTP user to enumerate the existence of files and directories outside the configured root directory.
The SSH_FXP_REALPATH handler in ssh_sftpd calls relate_file_name/3 with Canonicalize=false, unlike every other SFTP operation handler. This allows .. components in the requested path to bypass the is_within_root/2 check without being resolved. The un-canonicalized path then enters resolve_symlinks/2, which walks up the directory tree above the configured root and issues read_link() syscalls on arbitrary filesystem paths.
An authenticated SFTP client can exploit this by sending a REALPATH request with a crafted traversal path. The server response differs depending on whether the target path exists on the host filesystem (SSH_FXP_NAME when the path resolves successfully, SSH_FX_NO_SUCH_FILE when it does not). This creates a path-existence oracle that an attacker can use to enumerate the filesystem structure outside the configured root, including the existence of sensitive files, directories, and mount points.
The vulnerability leaks only the existence of paths. No file contents, credentials, or write access are obtainable through this issue alone. The information gained may assist further attacks when combined with other vulnerabilities.
This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/ssh/src/ssh_sftpd.erl and program routine ssh_sftpd:handle_op/4.
This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 29.0.3, OTP 28.5.0.3 and OTP 27.3.4.14, corresponding to ssh from 3.0.1 before 6.0.2, 5.5.2.2 and 5.2.11.9.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-28). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it