🎯 CVE-2026-49457 CRITICAL 9.1 🔥 EPSS 15% 🧪 PoC 🇪🇺 EUVD
📄 .md Alle CVEs anzeigen ✕

CVE-2026-49457 | 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

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.

Klassifikation & Betroffenheit:
benoitc erlang_quic < 1.4.4
Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') 🎯 Medium

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

🛡️ Empfohlene Mitigation: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Vollständige Definition bei MITRE ➔
🩹 Patch verfügbar (OSV):
🩹 fa39407684f6d08fc24762f7521caf1d719c0430 (Commit)
📚 Referenzen & Quellen:
Ausnutzungs-Zeitleiste:
CVSS-Vektor-Analyse: 9.1
AV · Angriffsvektor Netzwerk
AC · Komplexität Gering
PR · Privilegien Keine
UI · Interaktion Keine
S · Scope Unverändert
C · Vertraulichkeit Hoch
I · Integrität Hoch
A · Verfügbarkeit Keine
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Veröffentlicht:14.08.2026
Aktualisiert:14.08.2026 20:16
Assigner (CNA):GitHub_M
EUVD-ID:EUVD-2026-58756
Quellen: 🇪🇺 EUVD-Datenbank (ENISA) + 🇺🇸 NVD-Anreicherung · 24-h-Cache
CWE-94: Code Injection ✓ Offizieller Patch / Advisory verfügbar
💡 Gegenmaßnahme: Sicherheits-Update des Herstellers zeitnah einspielen und Netzwerksegmentierung prüfen.
🔴 Live Security Advisory & EPSS Exploit Radar

Zero-Day & Vulnerability Intelligence Hub

Echtzeit-Tracking mit EPSS Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeiten, Angriffsvektor-Decodern und KI-Patch-Anleitungen.

354k+ 🇪🇺 EUVD-Datenbank
1 🔴 Critical im Radar
0 ⚠️ CISA KEV
0 🔓 Aktiv ausgenutzt
1 🧪 PoC verfügbar
📊 Historien-Charts — Criticals-Trend · Vendors · EPSS-Verteilung
🔴 Criticals pro Monat (12 M) 2025-09: 164 2025-10: 316 2025-11: 257 2025-12: 426 2026-01: 431 2026-02: 418 2026-03: 652 2026-04: 574 2026-05: 683 2026-06: 942 2026-07: 1333 2026-08: 1329 7.525 Criticals gesamt
🏢 Top-Vendor-Veröffentlichungen (6 M) Adobe Apple Google Linux Microsoft Oracle Corporation
● Adobe ● Apple ● Google ● Linux ● Microsoft ● Oracle
📈 EPSS-Verteilung (Messungen)
Tier2026-08-292026-09-12
≥90 %40
≥50 %40
≥10 %30
<10 %304300
Datenquellen & Methodik: Primärquelle ist die EUVD der ENISA (laufender Datenbank-Sync, alle 15 Minuten), abgeglichen mit dem CISA-KEV-Katalog und der NVD — Detail-Dossiers reichern fehlende Felder live per NVD an — mit Fallback auf CIRCL vulnerability-lookup (EU/Non-Profit, aggregiert CVE-, GitHub- und OSV-Advisories). Der CISA-KEV-Katalog (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities, ~1.700 aktiv ausgenutzte Schwachstellen) wird bei jedem Sync vollständig neu geladen und kreuzreferenziert — filterbar über die KEV-Pille. CVSS 3.1 wird nach Ampel-Logik aus Verteidigersicht dekodiert; EPSS bezeichnet die 30-Tage-Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeit (FIRST.org).
🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD 🇺🇸 NVD ⚠️ CISA KEV ⚡ EPSS
Ökosystem & Hersteller Bedrohungs-Matrix:
benoitc 1
Schweregrad & Status:
Hersteller (Datenbank-weit, 90.597 Einträge):
Quelle:
Schwachstellen-Kategorie (CWE):
🔍
9.1 CRITICAL
🇪🇺 EUVD
EPSS 15%
CVE-2026-49457 🌐 Netzwerk (Remote) 🔓 Keine Authentifizierung nötig
🧪 benoitc

CVE-2026-49457 | 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

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

CWE-94: Code Injection ✓ Offizieller Patch / Advisory verfügbar
💡 Gegenmaßnahme: Sicherheits-Update des Herstellers zeitnah einspielen und Netzwerksegmentierung prüfen.