Skip to content

Repository navigation

eldap: Denial-of-Service enabled by Unbounded Integer Conversion

Moderate
Whaileee published GHSA-9vgh-c8cm-m9p4 Sep 1, 2026

Package

OTP

Affected versions

>= 17.0

Patched versions

29.0.6, 28.5.0.6, 27.3.4.17
eldap (otp)
>= 1.0.3
1.3.1, 1.2.16.1, 1.2.14.2

Description

Impact

eldap: referral-URL port parsed from a possibly malicious LDAP server.

Using untrusted input to convert between textual decimal representations and arbitrary-precision integers (bignums) with no bound on the number of digits. binary_to_integer/1,2 and list_to_integer/1,2 accept up to the global system_limit (~1.26 million base-10 digits, ~1.26 MB of text), and the reverse integer_to_binary/1 / integer_to_list/1 have no length limit at all.

The render path (integer_to_binary/1,2, integer_to_list/1,2) runs inside a non-yielding C BIF: it does not bump reductions or trap, so it occupies one dirty scheduler thread for the full conversion, uninterruptibly. Converting a large value is slow.

The parse path (binary_to_integer/1,2, list_to_integer/1,2) is less severe: the big-number case is pure Erlang and so preemptible. A ~1.26 M-digit input still takes hundreds of milliseconds.

The danger is amplified because the attacker does not need to transmit a huge number. A cheap operation manufactures one (1 bsl 50_000_000, a product, a power, binary:decode_unsigned/1 of a 1 MB binary), and then a single stringification renders it.

Affected/Unaffected Versions

A version larger than or equal to one of the listed patched versions is unaffected; otherwise, a version that satisfies an expression listed under affected versions is affected, and if it does not, it is unaffected.

The documentation of the OTP version scheme describes how versions should be compared. Note that versions used prior to OTP 17.0, when the new OTP version scheme was introduced, are never listed since it is not well defined how to compare those versions.

In the case of this vulnerability, versions prior to OTP 17.0 are also affected.

Credits

Thanks to Eric Meadows-Jönsson, Jonatan Männchen, Peter Ullrich, and José Valim for finding and responsibly disclosing this vulnerability to the Erlang/OTP project.

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVE ID

CVE-2026-70409

Weaknesses

Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input

The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties. Learn more on MITRE.

Credits