CVE-2024-53846
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 · uneditedOTP is a set of Erlang libraries, which consists of the Erlang runtime system, a number of ready-to-use components mainly written in Erlang, and a set of design principles for Erlang programs. A regression was introduced into the ssl application of OTP starting at OTP-25.3.2.8, OTP-26.2, and OTP-27.0, resulting in a server or client verifying the peer when incorrect extended key usage is presented (i.e., a server will verify a client if they have server auth ext key usage and vice versa).
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 confidenceA regression in Erlang/OTP's ssl application (affecting OTP-25.3.2.8+, OTP-26.2+, OTP-27.0+) causes incorrect validation of Extended Key Usage (EKU) extensions. The certificate validation logic incorrectly accepts certificates with mismatched EKU - servers accept client auth certificates and vice versa, breaking the fundamental TLS certificate role separation.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 installed Erlang/OTP versionRun `erl -eval 'erlang:display(erlang:system_info(otp_release)), halt().' -noshell` or check the output of `erl +V`Affected if The version falls within OTP-25.3.2.8 to OTP-25.x, OTP-26.2 to OTP-26.x, or OTP-27.0 to OTP-27.x (unpatched)
-
Confirm ssl application is loadedRun `erl -eval 'erlang:display(application:which_applications()), halt().' -noshell` and look for 'ssl' in the list, or check if your application starts ssl as a dependencyAffected if The ssl application is running and handling TLS connections
-
Verify TLS certificate validation is in useInspect your application's ssl configuration (ssl:connect or ssl:listen options) for certificate validation settings such as 'verify', 'verify_fun', or 'customize_hostname_check'Affected if TLS certificate validation is enabled with verify set to verify_peer (or 2)
-
Check if EKU validation is relied uponReview the certificates in your TLS setup to determine if Extended Key Usage extensions are present, and inspect ssl options for 'customize_hostname_check' or 'extended_key_usage' validation settingsAffected if Your TLS setup uses certificates with EKU extensions and relies on the ssl application to validate that client certificates have clientAuth EKU and server certificates have serverAuth EKU
You are affected if you run an unpatched Erlang/OTP version (25.3.2.8+, 26.2+, 27.0+) and use the ssl application for TLS with certificate validation relying on EKU checks.
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 OTP to patched versions when available. In the interim, implement additional certificate validation at the application layer or use mutual TLS with explicit certificate role verification to ensure only appropriate EKU certificates are accepted.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-53846 — 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-2024-53846 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