VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jun 2026Updated 15 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-48856: Erlang OTP · Open Redirect

Affects Erlang OTPSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 27.3.4.19 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 27.3.4.19, 9.3.2.8

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable 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 10 Jun 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 30 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 to 27.3.4.19; OTP and inets to 9.3.2.8.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
ErlangOTP	Affected >=17.0 <27.3.4.19	Fixed in 27.3.4.19
ErlangOTP	Affected >=5.10 <9.3.2.8	Fixed in 9.3.2.8
ErlangOTP	Affected ≥ 84adefa331c4159d432d22840663c38f155cd4c1, < f78fae9294886f95545a2212671282eda230def1	Fixed in–
GitHubinets`pkg:github/inets`Other threats	Affected >=5.10 <9.3.2.8	Fixed in 9.3.2.8

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, users should consider disabling automatic redirects in the httpc client to prevent forwarding sensitive headers to untrusted redirect targets.

Description

Sensitive Data Exposure vulnerability in Erlang OTP inets (httpc_response module) allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data. The httpc client forwards the Authorization and Proxy-Authorization request headers to redirect targets without checking whether the redirect crosses an origin boundary. httpc_response:redirect/2 constructs the redirected request by updating only the host field of the header record; all other fields (including authorization and proxy_authorization) are copied verbatim. The redirect target host is never compared against the original host. autoredirect defaults to true, so this affects all httpc callers that do not explicitly disable automatic redirects. An attacker who controls a server that the victim contacts via httpc can issue a cross-origin 3xx redirect to a server they also control. The Authorization header (including Basic credentials derived from URL userinfo via httpc_request:handle_user_info/2) is forwarded to the redirect target, allowing credential theft. The same applies to the Proxy-Authorization header. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/inets/src/http_client/httpc_response.erl. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.19, OTP 28.5.0.8, and OTP 29.1.2, corresponding to inets from 5.10 before 9.3.2.8, 9.6.2.4, and 9.8.1. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to inets before 5.10, is affected is unknown.

Impact

An attacker who controls a server that a victim's httpc client contacts can exploit the open redirect to steal sensitive credentials contained in Authorization and Proxy-Authorization headers. This leads to sensitive data exposure and potential unauthorized access to resources. The vulnerability affects all httpc clients with automatic redirects enabled (default setting), increasing the risk of credential theft in cross-origin redirect scenarios.

Summary

The vulnerability arises because the httpc_response:redirect/2 function in Erlang OTP's inets httpc client copies all HTTP headers, including Authorization and Proxy-Authorization, verbatim to redirected requests without validating if the redirect target is within the same origin. Since autoredirect is enabled by default, any httpc caller that does not disable automatic redirects is affected. An attacker controlling a server contacted by the victim can issue a cross-origin 3xx redirect to another attacker-controlled server, causing the victim's credentials in Authorization headers to be leaked to the attacker. This issue affects OTP versions from 17.0 before OTP 29.0.2, 28.5.0.2, and 27.3.4.13, and corresponding inets versions from 5.10 before 9.7.1, 9.6.2.2, and 9.3.2.6.

CWE-601URL Redirection to Untrusted Site (Open Redirect) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
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
Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Site Flashing (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, 21:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-601

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats