VulnerabilityPublished 21 Apr 2026Updated 24 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-32147: Erlang OTP · Path Traversal

Affects Erlang OTPSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 5.5.3 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.5.3, 28.4.3, 27.3.4.11 +1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: Low
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Apr 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade OTP and ssh to 5.5.3; OTP and erlang/otp to 28.4.3; erlang/otp to 28.4.3, 27.3.4.11 or 26.2.5.20.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
ErlangOTP	Affected >=3.01 <5.5.3	Fixed in 5.5.3
ErlangOTP	Affected >=17.0 <28.4.3	Fixed in 28.4.3
GitHuberlang/otp`pkg:github/erlang/otp`Other threats	Affected <28.4.3 <27.3.4.11 <26.2.5.20	Fixed in 28.4.3 27.3.4.11 26.2.5.20
GitHubssh`pkg:github/ssh`Other threats	Affected >=3.01 <5.5.3	Fixed in 5.5.3
GitHuberlang/otp`pkg:github/erlang/otp`Other threats	Affected >=17.0 <28.4.3	Fixed in 28.4.3

CPE configurations (1)

cpe:2.3:a:erlang:erlang\/otp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, administrators should consider restricting SSH daemon privileges and carefully review chroot configurations. Monitoring and restricting authenticated SFTP user actions may help mitigate risk. Avoid running the SSH daemon as root if possible.

Description

Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in Erlang OTP ssh (ssh_sftpd module) allows an authenticated SFTP user to modify file attributes outside the configured chroot directory. The SFTP daemon (ssh_sftpd) stores the raw, user-supplied path in file handles instead of the chroot-resolved path. When SSH_FXP_FSETSTAT is issued on such a handle, file attributes (permissions, ownership, timestamps) are modified on the real filesystem path, bypassing the root directory boundary entirely. Any authenticated SFTP user on a server configured with the root option can modify file attributes of files outside the intended chroot boundary. The prerequisite is that a target file must exist on the real filesystem at the same relative path. Note that this vulnerability only allows modification of file attributes; file contents cannot be read or altered through this attack vector. If the SSH daemon runs as root, this enables direct privilege escalation: an attacker can set the setuid bit on any binary, change ownership of sensitive files, or make system configuration world-writable. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/ssh/src/ssh_sftpd.erl and program routines ssh_sftpd:do_open/4 and ssh_sftpd:handle_op/4. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 28.4.3, OTP 27.3.4.11 and OTP 26.2.5.20, corresponding to ssh from 3.0.1 before 5.5.3, 5.2.11.7 and 5.1.4.15.

Impact

An authenticated SFTP user can bypass the chroot directory restriction to modify file attributes (permissions, ownership, timestamps) on files outside the restricted directory. This does not allow reading or modifying file contents but can lead to privilege escalation if the SSH daemon runs as root. Attackers could set the setuid bit on binaries, change ownership of sensitive files, or make system configuration files world-writable, potentially compromising system security.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

CPE configurations (1)

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 24 Jul 2026, 21:34 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats