Home/CVE/Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ssl
CVE

CVE-2026-54891

Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ssl

Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ssl (tls_gen_connection module) allows a network-positioned attacker to inject unauthenticated plaintext that the TLS client application later treats as authenticated server data. The function tls_gen_connection:handle_protocol_record/3 rejects APPLICATION_DATA records that arrive in pre-handshake states when the TLS endpoint acts as a server, but does not apply the same check when the endpoint acts as a client. A network-positioned attacker can send plaintext APPLICATION_DATA records to the client during the handshake.

The records are buffered and, once the handshake completes successfully, delivered to the application as if they were authenticated post-handshake data. The attacker cannot observe the client's response or steer the connection, so the impact is limited to blind injection of unauthenticated bytes. The injection window is wider for TLS versions prior to TLS 1.3 than for TLS 1.3.

This vulnerability is associated with program file lib/ssl/src/tls_gen_connection.erl. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before 29.0.3, 28.5.0.3 and 27.3.4.14 corresponding to ssl from 5.3.4 before 11.7.3, 11.6.0.3 and 11.2.12.10. TLS 1.3 is affected starting with OTP 22.0, when TLS 1.3 support was added.

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-2026-54891, 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).