OTP: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests
CVE-2026-73812 is a high-severity inconsistent interpretation of HTTP requests 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 version 591dc00dc99dc2a426167a3b5257c0c94bd45e91 as the first without the flaw, so updating OTP to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.52% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update OTP to 591dc00dc99dc2a426167a3b5257c0c94bd45e91 or a later version.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Erlang | OTP | 17.0 and later; 5.10 and later; 84adefa331c4159d432d22840663c38f155cd4c1 up to, but not including, 591dc00dc99dc2a426167a3b5257c0c94bd45e91 | 591dc00dc99dc2a426167a3b5257c0c94bd45e91 |
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)
- LowLimited loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo 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:L/VI:H/VA:N/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
httpd function check_header/3 rejects duplicate Content-Length (per CVE-2026-23941) but never checks for the TE+CL co-presence that RFC 9112 §6.3 identifies as a probable smuggling attempt. handle_body/3 frames by chunked and silently discards Content-Length. A CL-preferring front-end paired with chunked-preferring inets creates a classic CL.TE front-end/back-end desync. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.17, OTP 28.5.0.6, and OTP 29.0.6, corresponding to inets from 5.10 before 9.3.2.7, 9.6.2.3, and 9.7.2. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to inets before 5.10, is affected is unknown.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a web server that employs a strict HTTP parsing procedure, such as Apache.
- Terminate the client session after each request.
More Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests vulnerabilities (CWE-444)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other references
Other vulnerabilities in OTP
- 8.2 High severity
- 9.3 Critical severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
- 8.7 High severity
Recent Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests vulnerabilities
- 8.3 High severity
- 8.3 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 9.1 Critical severity
- 9.1 Critical severity
- 9.2 Critical severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.