CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-59250NVD status: Awaiting Analysis

OTP: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-59250 is a high-severity buffer copy without checking size of input vulnerability in OTP from Erlang, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.3 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. The record lists versions 27.3.4.15, 28.5.0.4, 29.0.4 as the first without the flaw, so updating OTP to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.78% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 56% of scored CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Update OTP to 27.3.4.15 or 28.5.0.4 or 29.0.4 or 4.7.2.2, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
  3. Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
ErlangOTP17.0 up to, but not including, 27.3.4.15; 28.0 up to, but not including, 28.5.0.4; 29.0 up to, but not including, 29.0.4; 3.17.1 up to, but not including, 4.7.2.2; 4.8 up to, but not including, 4.8.3.1; 4.9 up to, but not including, 4.9.1; 84adefa331c4159d432d22840663c38f155cd4c1 up to, but not including, 8704c8f550a11ed5f825e3c011ecb03565b79c4f27.3.4.15, 28.5.0.4, 29.0.4, 4.7.2.2, 4.8.3.1, 4.9.1

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.
Attack requirements
PresentThe target must be in a specific state or configuration for the attack to work.
Privileges required
NoneNo account or login is needed.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
NoneNo loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
Integrity (vulnerable system)
LowLimited loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
Availability (vulnerable system)
HighSerious loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
Confidentiality (other systems)
NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Integrity (other systems)
NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Availability (other systems)
NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.

Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X. Scored by CNA.

Official description

Classic buffer overflow in the Erlang/OTP megaco flex scanner C driver allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to corrupt the driver's memory (and potentially achieve remote code execution or a denial-of-service crash) by sending a single text-encoded H.248/Megaco message containing an oversized property parm name. When tokenizing a Local/Remote descriptor, mfs_load_property_groups extracts the attacker-controlled property name (bounded only by the message length) and, when no value follows, formats it into a fixed 512-byte error_msg field of the MfsErlDrvData struct using an unchecked sprintf call. Names longer than roughly 452 bytes overflow into the immediately following struct fields (text_buf, text_ptr, term_spec, term_spec_size, term_spec_index), overwriting live pointers and counters with attacker-chosen bytes. Subsequent scanner code writes and frees through the corrupted pointers, producing arbitrary write and arbitrary free primitives inside the BEAM VM process, which can be leveraged for remote code execution. On builds compiled with _FORTIFY_SOURCE the overflow is detected at runtime and terminates the process with SIGABRT, resulting in denial of service. The overflow occurs in the flex scanner before any grammar or Megaco-level authentication processing, so exploitation requires only network reachability to the megaco transport port on a node configured with {scanner, flex}. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/megaco/src/flex/megaco_flex_scanner_drv.flex.src and program routines mfs_load_property_groups. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.15, from OTP 28.0 before OTP 28.5.0.4, and from OTP 29.0 before OTP 29.0.4, corresponding to megaco from 3.17.1 before 4.7.2.2, from 4.8 before 4.8.3.1, and from 4.9 before 4.9.1. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to megaco before 3.17.1, is affected is unknown.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input

The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
  • Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.

More Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities (CWE-120)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in OTP

All OTP vulnerabilities

Recent Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.