CVE Tools

CVE-2026-55953

TLS 1.2 and DTLS client accepts unoffered anonymous cipher suite, bypassing server authentication

No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 28th percentile. A vendor fix is available.

Published Updated Sources: CVE.org, NVD

What to do

The vendor has published a fix. Version details are below where the sources state them.

What it is

From the CVE record

The Erlang/OTP ssl TLS 1.2 (and earlier) and DTLS client does not verify that the cipher suite selected by the server in ServerHello was among the suites offered by the client in ClientHello. The client-side tls_handshake:hello/5 handler validates the negotiated protocol version and the downgrade sentinel but hands the server-chosen suite directly to ssl_handshake:handle_server_hello_extensions/9, which installs it without a membership check. The TLS 1.3 client path performs this check (per RFC 8446), so it is not affected. An on-path attacker between the client and the intended server can respond with a ServerHello selecting an anonymous key exchange suite such as TLS_DH_anon_* or TLS_ECDH_anon_* that the client never offered. Anonymous suites do not require the server to present a certificate, so the entire verify_peer and cacerts configuration is bypassed: the attacker completes the handshake with its own ephemeral parameters, no certificate is validated, no hostname is checked, and ssl:connect returns {ok, Socket}. All subsequent application traffic is readable and modifiable by the attacker. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.15, from OTP 28.0 before OTP 28.5.0.4, and from OTP 29.0 before OTP 29.0.4, corresponding to ssl from 5.3.4 before 11.2.12.11, from 11.3 before 11.6.0.4, and from 11.7 before 11.7.4. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to ssl before 5.3.4, is affected is unknown.

In plain language

No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.

Exploitation

Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.

EPSS28th
CISA KEV

Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.

Public exploits

No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.

EPSS

0.4% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 28th percentile of scored CVEs.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.

Lifecycle

16 events over 43 days, from the signal feeds we watch.

  1. Patch availableworkaround available, record updated
  2. Patch availableworkaround available, record updated
  3. Workaround availablerecord updated
  4. OpenVAS check addedworkaround available, record updated
  5. Workaround availableworkaround available, published, weakness classified, record updated

Affected products

Technical detail

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Scored 7.4 by NVD.

How it is reached

  • Attack Vector NetworkExploitable remotely over the network without any special conditions
  • Attack Complexity HighRequires specific conditions like a race condition or non-default configuration
  • Privileges Required NoneNo authentication required — anyone can exploit this
  • User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation

Scope

  • Scope UnchangedImpact is limited to the vulnerable component itself

Impact if exploited

  • Confidentiality HighTotal information disclosure — all data in the component is compromised
  • Integrity HighTotal loss of integrity — attacker can modify any data in the component
  • Availability NoneNo availability impact

Weaknesses

Sources

Watch the software you run.

My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.

We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for OTP, not every advisory.

We use analytics cookies to see which pages and articles actually help people. Decline and none of them run — the site works the same. What we store