CVE-2026-48858

Home/CVE/Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ftp (ftp_internal module) allows FTP bounce attacks and S

CVE

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ftp (ftp_internal module) allows FTP bounce attacks and S

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 29.0.2, 28.5.0.2 and 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.

MEDIUM · CVSS 6.5 EPSS 0.00041

Schedule remediation

SSVC automatable: yes - attacks can be scripted at scale

Sigma rules0 YARA rules0

Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots

NVD CVE.org CISA Vulners Exploit-DB GitHub PoC VulnCheck KEV GreyNoise

▸ How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch

This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-48858, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.

Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:

CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked. EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal. CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score. Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.

How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.

Then what - two workflows:

Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits. PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.

Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).

View attack path from CVE-2026-48858

◆

ATT&CK techniques

Techniques this CVE enables - linked via CWECAPECATT&CK. High◆ = named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei templates.

T1190 · Exploit Public-Facing Application T1090 · Proxy T1190 · Exploit Public-Facing Application

▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques

▤

CAPEC attack patterns

Attack patterns this CVE enables - the bridge from weakness to ATT&CK technique.

CAPEC-CAPEC-664 · Server Side Request Forgery

⬡

Weakness Classification

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

▣

Scoring & Timeline

6.5

MEDIUM · CVSS v3.1 · 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db

View on NVD

Attack Vector

Network Adjacent Local Physical

Attack Complexity

Low High

Privileges Required

None Low High

User Interaction

None Required

Scope

Unchanged Changed

Confidentiality

None Low High

Integrity

None Low High

Availability

None Low High

Published to NVD10 Jun 2026 · 04:17 PM

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

SSVC triage · cisa-vulnrichment

Exploitation

none

Automatable

yes

Technical impact

partial

SSVC asks the questions that actually drive patch urgency: is it being exploited, can attacks be automated, and how total is the impact.