CVE-2015-2774
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedErlang/OTP before 18.0-rc1 does not properly check CBC padding bytes when terminating connections, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain cleartext data via a padding-oracle attack, a variant of CVE-2014-3566 (aka POODLE).
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceErlang/OTP before version 18.0-rc1 contains a padding oracle vulnerability in its TLS/SSL implementation where CBC mode padding bytes are not properly validated when terminating connections. This allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to exploit the padding oracle (similar to POODLE/CVE-2014-3566) to gradually decrypt encrypted data by observing padding validation responses.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 18.0= 11.2= 13.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Erlang/OTP versionRun 'erl -eval "erlang:display(erlang:system_info(otp_release)), halt()." -noshell' or check /usr/lib/erlang/releases/ directoryAffected if Version is 18.0 or earlier (including R16, 17.x, etc.)
-
Verify TLS/SSL is in useReview application configuration files for SSL/TLS settings, check process list for Erlang SSL daemon or examine application logs for TLS connectionsAffected if TLS/SSL connections are established using the Erlang SSL module
-
Check enabled cipher suitesInspect SSL configuration (ssl:cipher_suites/0 or ssl:cipher_suites/2) or review server SSL configuration files for cipher suite definitionsAffected if CBC mode cipher suites (such as AES-CBC, DES-CBC) are among the enabled or default cipher suites
-
Confirm TLS client/server modeReview application logs or network captures to confirm TLS connections are being accepted or initiated by the Erlang applicationAffected if The Erlang application acts as a TLS server (accepts connections) or client that negotiates CBC-based cipher suites
The environment is affected if running Erlang/OTP version 18.0 or earlier AND using TLS/SSL with CBC mode cipher suites for connections.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade Erlang/OTP to version 18.0-rc1 or later to obtain the patched TLS implementation that properly validates CBC padding bytes.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-2774 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2015-2774 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data