Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Erlang OTP erts (inet_drv) allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to crash the BEAM VM by sending a crafted SCTP ERROR chunk.
The sctp_parse_error_chunk function in erts/emulator/drivers/common/inet_drv.c parses SCTP ERROR chunks and writes cause codes into a fixed-size stack-allocated ErlDrvTermData spec[] array without checking bounds. A remote attacker who has established an SCTP association to a listening port can send a single crafted SCTP ERROR chunk containing enough cause codes to overflow the stack buffer, crashing the VM. The attacker can only write 16-bit values interleaved with a fixed tag, so the overflow does not provide a controlled return address, limiting exploitation to Denial of Service.
A crafted SCTP ERROR chunk may also leak bits and pieces of Erlang VM memory into the received error packet observed by the Erlang process. Such data is already readable by the user running the Erlang VM, so the disclosure scope is limited.
This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.13, OTP 28.5.0.2, and OTP 29.0.2, corresponding to erts from 6.0 before 15.2.7.9, 16.4.0.2, and 17.0.2. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to erts before 6.0, is affected is unknown.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.2 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-11). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it