Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ssl (tls_gen_connection module) allows a network-positioned attacker to inject unauthenticated plaintext that the TLS client application later treats as authenticated server data.
The function tls_gen_connection:handle_protocol_record/3 rejects APPLICATION_DATA records that arrive in pre-handshake states when the TLS endpoint acts as a server, but does not apply the same check when the endpoint acts as a client. A network-positioned attacker can send plaintext APPLICATION_DATA records to the client during the handshake. The records are buffered and, once the handshake completes successfully, delivered to the application as if they were authenticated post-handshake data. The attacker cannot observe the client's response or steer the connection, so the impact is limited to blind injection of unauthenticated bytes. The injection window is wider for TLS versions prior to TLS 1.3 than for TLS 1.3.
This vulnerability is associated with program file lib/ssl/src/tls_gen_connection.erl.
TLS 1.3 is affected starting with OTP 22.0, when TLS 1.3 support was added.
This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.14, from OTP 28.0 before OTP 28.5.0.3, and from OTP 29.0 before OTP 29.0.3, corresponding to ssl from 5.3.4 before 11.2.12.10, from 11.3 before 11.6.0.3, and from 11.7 before 11.7.3. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to ssl before 5.3.4, is affected is unknown.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (3.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 3.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 3.7 LOWCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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