Home/CVE/Use of Default Cryptographic Key vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ssl (DTLS server) allows predictable DTLS cookie computatio
CVE

CVE-2026-54887

Use of Default Cryptographic Key vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ssl (DTLS server) allows predictable DTLS cookie computatio

Use of Default Cryptographic Key vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ssl (DTLS server) allows predictable DTLS cookie computation during the startup window, enabling source address verification bypass. On DTLS server startup, dtls_server_connection:initial_hello/3 initializes previous_cookie_secret to the empty binary (<<>>) instead of a random value. Because HMAC with an empty key is deterministic, anyone who observes the plaintext ClientHello can compute dtls_handshake:cookie(<<>>, IP, Port, Hello) and forge a valid DTLS cookie before the first rotation of the cookie secret. The DTLS cookie (RFC 6347 §4.2.1) is a denial-of-service mitigation that prevents spoofed source IPs from forcing the server to allocate state and perform expensive cryptographic operations.

it is not an authentication mechanism. During the window from server startup until the first secret rotation (0 to 15 seconds), an attacker who can observe the plaintext ClientHello can bypass the source address verification, enabling DTLS handshake amplification with spoofed source addresses. This vulnerability is associated with program file lib/ssl/src/dtls_server_connection.erl and program routine dtls_server_connection:initial_hello/3. This issue affects OTP from OTP 20.0 before 29.0.3, 28.5.0.3 and 27.3.4.14 corresponding to ssl from 8.2 before 11.7.3, 11.6.0.3 and 11.2.12.10.

Monitor
  • ⚠ NVD has not scored this CVE yet - manual triage required (common for recent CVEs)
Sigma rules0 YARA rules0
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-54887, 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).