erlang_quic: Improper Certificate Validation
CVE-2026-49457 is a critical-severity improper certificate validation vulnerability in erlang_quic from Benoitc, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.1 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected erlang_quic versions: < 1.4.4. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.25% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.
What to do
- Check which version of erlang_quic you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Benoitc | erlang_quic | < 1.4.4 | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- NoneAvailability is not affected.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
erlang_quic is a pure Erlang QUIC implementation. Prior to version 1.4.4, the QUIC client did not authenticate the server during the TLS 1.3 handshake. The CertificateVerify signature was not checked, the certificate chain was not validated, and the hostname was not compared against the certificate, so `verify` was effectively a no-op on the client. A man-in-the-middle on the network path could present any certificate and impersonate any server, defeating the confidentiality and integrity of the connection. HTTP/3 uses the same client and was equally affected. Handshakes authenticated by a PSK (session resumption) are not affected, because the peer is authenticated by the PSK binder and no certificate is sent. This is fixed in 1.4.4. The client now verifies the CertificateVerify signature, validates the certificate chain against the trust store (`cacerts` option, the operating system store by default), and checks the hostname. Client `verify` now defaults to on; set `verify => false` to accept any certificate (for example a self-signed test server). No known workarounds are available before 1.4.4. `verify => true` had no effect, and inspecting the certificate after connecting does not help because without the signature check the peer is never proven to own the certificate it presents.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Certificate Validation
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
- If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
More Improper Certificate Validation vulnerabilities (CWE-295)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: yes, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Recent Improper Certificate Validation vulnerabilities
- 8.0 High severity
- 7.4 High severity
- 9.1 Critical severity
- 8.3 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
- 7.4 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.