Erlang\/inetsApplication · Erlang

CVE-2026-48858

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-06-10
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 1.2.3.1 / 1.2.4.1 or later.
See remediation →
74/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click Patch available

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 · unedited
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ftp (ftp_internal module) allows FTP bounce attacks and SSRF via an unvalidated PASV response IP address. The ftp_internal:handle_ctrl_result/2 PASV handler (mode=passive, ipfamily=inet, ftp_extension=false) extracts the IP address from the server's 227 response and passes it directly to gen_tcp:connect/4 without validating it against the control connection peer address. The adjacent EPSV handlers correctly call peername(CSock) to derive the IP from the control connection, but the PASV handler does not. A malicious or compromised FTP server can redirect the client's data connection to an arbitrary internal host and port. On read operations (ftp:ls/1,2, ftp:nlist/1,2, ftp:recv/2,3), data from the redirected target is returned to the caller. On write operations (ftp:send/2,3, ftp:append/2,3), file content is sent to the redirected target. This enables SSRF against internal hosts, cloud metadata endpoints, and FTP bounce attacks against third-party hosts. The vulnerable path is the default configuration (mode=passive, ipfamily=inet, ftp_extension=false). RFC 2577 section 3 explicitly recommends validating the PASV response IP against the control connection peer. The ftp application is deprecated and scheduled for removal in OTP-30. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/inets/src/ftp/ftp_internal.erl (inets 5.10.4 through 6.5, OTP 17.4 through 20.3) and lib/ftp/src/ftp_internal.erl (ftp 1.0 and later, OTP 21.0 and later). This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.4 before OTP 29.0.2, OTP 28.5.0.2 and OTP 27.3.4.13, corresponding to inets from 5.10.4 before 7.0 and ftp from 1.0 before 1.2.6, 1.2.4.1 and 1.2.3.1.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-918

The server can be induced to make requests to a URL an attacker controls, turning it into a proxy into internal networks and cloud metadata services. It's especially dangerous behind a trusted network boundary. The fix is strict allow-listing of destinations and blocking access to internal address ranges.

General guidance for the server-side request forgery (ssrf) class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →

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
Erlang\/inetsApplication
Affected:>= 5.10.4, < 7.0
Erlang\/otpApplication
Affected:>= 17.4, < 27.3.4.13>= 28.0, < 28.5.0.2>= 29.0, < 29.0.2
FtpApplication
Affected:>= 1.0, < 1.2.3.1>= 1.2.4, < 1.2.4.1>= 1.2.5, < 1.2.6

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
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

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

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.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 1.2.3.1 / 1.2.4.1 / 1.2.6 or later
Fixed in 1.2.3.11.2.4.11.2.6
Vendor patch github.com →
Recommended fix High confidence

OTP 27.3.4.13 / OTP 28.5.0.2 / OTP 29.0.2 (or inets 7.0 / ftp 1.2.6 as applicable)

  1. Identify the specific Erlang/OTP, inets, or ftp library version currently in use by checking your project dependencies or Erlang installation
  2. For Erlang/OTP users: Upgrade to one of the following fixed versions: OTP 27.3.4.13 or later, OTP 28.5.0.2 or later, or OTP 29.0.2 or later
  3. For inets library users (if using standalone inets): Upgrade to version 7.0 or later
  4. For ftp library users (if using standalone ftp): Upgrade to version 1.2.6, 1.2.4.1, or 1.2.3.1 or later depending on your major version line
  5. After upgrading, verify the fix by testing FTP passive mode connections to ensure data connections still work correctly with legitimate FTP servers
  6. If immediate upgrade is not possible, avoid connecting to untrusted FTP servers and restrict FTP operations to trusted, internal servers only
Caveat The ftp application is deprecated and scheduled for removal in OTP-30; consider migrating to alternative FTP client libraries

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

We can perform the upgrade in your staging environment and verify nothing breaks — typical engagement from $2,850. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-48858 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-48858 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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