Independent & educational platform Not a government body. No link or affiliation with any government organisation. Made for learning only. Test only systems you own or are authorised to test. Become a Partner or Sponsor → Full disclaimer

CVE-2026-42791

low

Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows forged OCSP responses signed with an expired responder certi…

Vendor / product: Erlang — erlang\/otp

Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows forged OCSP responses signed with an expired responder certificate to be accepted as valid. OCSP response verification in pubkey_ocsp:verify_response/5 and pubkey_ocsp:is_authorized_responder/3 in lib/public_key/src/pubkey_ocsp.erl does not check the validity period (notBefore/notAfter) of the OCSP responder certificate. An attacker who has obtained the private key of an expired CA-designated OCSP responder certificate can forge OCSP responses that Erlang/OTP accepts as valid. This affects TLS clients using OCSP stapling via the ssl application: a malicious or compromised server can present a revoked TLS certificate together with a forged OCSP response signed by an expired responder key, and the client will accept the revoked certificate as valid. It also affects applications calling public_key:pkix_ocsp_validate/5 directly, where the impact depends on the use case — server-side client certificate validation using this API may allow authentication bypass with a revoked client certificate. This issue affects OTP from OTP 27.0 before OTP 27.3.4.12, OTP 28.5.0.1, and OTP 29.0.1, corresponding to public_key from 1.16 before 1.17.1.3, 1.20.3.1, and 1.21.1.

CVSS
3.7
3.7 (CVSS v3.1)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Severity source: NVD CVSS v3.1 (nvd@nist.gov)
Timeline (UTC)
Published: 2026-05-27 14:16
Modified: 2026-11-11 19:17
NVD status: Modified
Last synced 50 minutes ago
Verified against the source API 2026-11-11 19:42 UTC
Exploitation
Not listed in CISA KEV (as of last catalog sync)
Absence from KEV does not mean a CVE is not exploited. Exploitation status: unknown (no authoritative evidence in our sources).

Affected products

erlang / erlang\/otp ≥27.0 <27.3.4.12, ≥28.0 <28.5.0.1, ≥29.0 <29.0.1

Weakness classification (CWE)

Source: NVD / CISA. “NVD-CWE-Other” and “NVD-CWE-noinfo” mean NVD could not assign a specific weakness.

Mitigation & advisories

Vendor advisory: https://github.com/erlang/otp/security/advisories/GHSA-cjxj-wj6x-3fff
Patch / mitigation: https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/7995f1fdaee3da569bb810358ce0f546471d169b
Patch / mitigation: https://github.com/erlang/otp/commit/b3870e02405c709a872b01ba6086065620cdfe76
Patch / mitigation: https://github.com/erlang/otp/security/advisories/GHSA-cjxj-wj6x-3fff

References

Data sources

NVD CVE API 2.0 — fetched 2026-11-11 19:42 UTC · record ↗

Learn the basics

Understanding CVEs and CVSS Scores

Related CVEs