Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ssl (tls_gen_connection module) allows a network-positioned attacker to inject unauthenticated plaintext that the TLS client application later treats as authenticated server data.
The function tls_gen_connection:handle_protocol_record/3 rejects APPLICATION_DATA records that arrive in pre-handshake states when the TLS endpoint acts as a server, but does not apply the same check when the endpoint acts as a client. A network-positioned attacker can send plaintext APPLICATION_DATA records to the client during the handshake. The records are buffered and, once the handshake completes successfully, delivered to the application as if they were authenticated post-handshake data. The attacker cannot observe the client's response or steer the connection, so the impact is limited to blind injection of unauthenticated bytes. The injection window is wider for TLS versions prior to TLS 1.3 than for TLS 1.3.
This vulnerability is associated with program file lib/ssl/src/tls_gen_connection.erl.
This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before 29.0.3, 28.5.0.3 and 27.3.4.14 corresponding to ssl from 5.3.4 before 11.7.3, 11.6.0.3 and 11.2.12.10. TLS 1.3 is affected starting with OTP 22.0, when TLS 1.3 support was added.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| erlang / erlang/otp | 17.0 | 27.3.4.14 |
| erlang / erlang/otp | 28.0 | 28.5.0.3 |
| erlang / erlang/otp | 29.0 | 29.0.3 |
| erlang / erlang/ssl | 5.3.4 | 11.2.12.10 |
| erlang / erlang/ssl | 11.3 | 11.6.0.3 |
| erlang / erlang/ssl | 11.7 | 11.7.3 |
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.