Inefficient algorithmic complexity in the Erlang/OTP asn1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER decoder allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to cause denial of service by sending a crafted OID during the TLS handshake.
The BER OID decoder asn1rtt_ber:dec_subidentifiers/3 in lib/asn1/src/asn1rtt_ber.erl and the equivalent PER helper asn1rtt_per_common:dec_subidentifiers/3 in lib/asn1/src/asn1rtt_per_common.erl accumulate a base-128 subidentifier into an unbounded integer using (Av bsl 7) + H per continuation byte. Each shift and addition on the growing accumulator is linear in the number of bits already accumulated, giving quadratic total work in the size of a single subidentifier. The JER helper asn1rtt_jer:json2oid/1 in lib/asn1/src/asn1rtt_jer.erl exhibits the same class of unbounded-integer parsing when decoding a dot-separated OID from JSON. A DER-encoded OBJECT IDENTIFIER with one very large arc (approximately 262 KB of continuation bytes) consumes roughly 13 seconds of CPU on typical hardware.
The vulnerable decoder is generated into every ASN.1 module that contains an OBJECT IDENTIFIER, including OTP-PUB-KEY which is reached during X.509 certificate parsing via public_key:pkix_decode_cert/2. This decoder runs before any signature or trust chain verification, so any Erlang service that parses peer TLS certificates is exposed: the default for TLS clients (which always parse the server certificate) and for mutual-TLS servers (which parse client certificates).
This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/asn1/src/asn1rtt_ber.erl, lib/asn1/src/asn1rtt_per_common.erl and lib/asn1/src/asn1rtt_jer.erl and program routines asn1rtt_ber:dec_subidentifiers/3, asn1rtt_per_common:dec_subidentifiers/3 and asn1rtt_jer:json2oid/1.
This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.18, OTP 28.5.0.7, and OTP 29.1.1, corresponding to asn1 from 3.0 before 5.3.4.3, 5.4.3.1, and 5.5.2. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to asn1 before 3.0, 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 (8.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.2 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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