CVE-2026-48858 | ftp client PASV response IP not validated against control peer, enabling SSRF and FTP bounce attacks

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Erlang/OTP ftp (ftp_internal module) allows FTP bounce attacks and SSRF via an unvalidated PASV response IP address. The ftp_internal:handle_ctrl_result/2 PASV handler (mode=passive, ipfamily=inet, ftp_extension=false) extracts the IP address from the server's 227 response and passes it directly to gen_tcp:connect/4 without validating it against the control connection peer address. The adjacent EPSV handlers correctly call peername(CSock) to derive the IP from the control connection, but the PASV handler does not. A malicious or compromised FTP server can redirect the client's data connection to an arbitrary internal host and port. On read operations (ftp:ls/1,2, ftp:nlist/1,2, ftp:recv/2,3), data from the redirected target is returned to the caller. On write operations (ftp:send/2,3, ftp:append/2,3), file content is sent to the redirected target. This enables SSRF against internal hosts, cloud metadata endpoints, and FTP bounce attacks against third-party hosts. The vulnerable path is the default configuration (mode=passive, ipfamily=inet, ftp_extension=false). RFC 2577 section 3 explicitly recommends validating the PASV response IP against the control connection peer. The ftp application is deprecated and scheduled for removal in OTP-30. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/inets/src/ftp/ftp_internal.erl (inets 5.10.4 through 6.5, OTP 17.4 through 20.3) and lib/ftp/src/ftp_internal.erl (ftp 1.0 and later, OTP 21.0 and later). This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.4 before 29.0.2, 28.5.0.2 and 27.3.4.13 corresponding to inets from 5.10.4 before 7.0 and ftp from 1.0 before 1.2.6, 1.2.4.1 and 1.2.3.1.

Published: 2026-06-10 Last update: 2026-06-11 Assigner: 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db Source: 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db
NVD Status：Analyzed，CVE State: published
View at NVD, CVE.org, EUVD

CVE-2026-48858 is rated Low Risk (30.7/100): CVSS Medium severity, with low exploitation likelihood (EPSS 0.05%). Monitor for updates and reassess as exploit intelligence or EPSS changes.

Risk is dynamic; we continuously reassess and refresh what is shown on this page as upstream context changes.

Exploit prediction scoring system (EPSS) score for CVE-2026-48858

EPSS lead: Daily EPSS estimates relative likelihood of exploitation; percentile ranks this CVE among scored vulnerabilities (higher = more severe relative rank).

# Date Old EPSS score New EPSS score Delta (New - Old)
1 2026-06-11 — 0.05% —

Full EPSS history (1 record total)

Common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) metrics for CVE-2026-48858

CVSS metrics for this CVE.

Base score Version Severity Vector Exploitability Impact Score source
6.3 4.0 MEDIUM
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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 Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Exploitation conditions are straightforward and stable.
Attack requirements (AT:P)
Additional preconditions must be present for exploitation.
Privileges required (PR:N)
No privileges are required.
User interaction (UI:N)
No user interaction is required.
Vulnerable system confidentiality impact (VC:L)
Limited confidentiality impact on the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system integrity impact (VI:L)
Limited integrity impact on the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability impact (VA:N)
No availability impact on the vulnerable system.
Subsequent system confidentiality impact (SC:L)
Limited confidentiality impact on subsequent systems.
Subsequent system integrity impact (SI:L)
Limited integrity impact on subsequent systems.
Subsequent system availability impact (SA:N)
No availability impact on subsequent systems.
Exploit maturity (threat) (E:X)
Not defined: no reliable threat intelligence; scoring assumes the worst case (equivalent to Attacked).
Confidentiality requirement (CR:X)
Not defined: insufficient information; scoring treats this like High (worst case).
Integrity requirement (IR:X)
Not defined: insufficient information; scoring treats this like High (worst case).
Availability requirement (AR:X)
Not defined: insufficient information; scoring treats this like High (worst case).
Modified attack vector (MAV:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Attack Vector (AV).
Modified attack complexity (MAC:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Attack Complexity (AC).
Modified attack requirements (MAT:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Attack Requirements (AT).
Modified privileges required (MPR:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Privileges Required (PR).
Modified user interaction (MUI:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base User Interaction (UI).
Modified vulnerable system confidentiality impact (MVC:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base VC metric.
Modified vulnerable system integrity impact (MVI:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base VI metric.
Modified vulnerable system availability impact (MVA:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base VA metric.
Modified subsequent system confidentiality impact (MSC:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base SC metric.
Modified subsequent system integrity impact (MSI:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base SI metric.
Modified subsequent system availability impact (MSA:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base SA metric.
Safety (supplemental) (S:X)
Not evaluated.
Automatable (supplemental) (AU:X)
Not evaluated.
Recovery (supplemental) (R:X)
Not evaluated.
Value density (supplemental) (V:X)
Not evaluated.
Vulnerability response effort (supplemental) (RE:X)
Not evaluated.
Provider urgency (supplemental) (U:X)
Not evaluated.
 — — 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db
6.5 3.1 MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network—not just someone sitting at the machine.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:N)
No account or special rights needed—anonymous or random user is enough.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:L)
Some sensitive info could get out, but not a total data dump.
Integrity (I:L)
Attackers could change some data, but it’s limited—not everything goes.
Availability (A:N)
Service keeps running; no real outage angle.
 3.9 2.5 [email protected]

Weakness enumeration for CVE-2026-48858

OS Trackers for CVE-2026-48858

vendor priority summary link
debian not yet assigned CVE-2026-48858 not yet assigned priority: Debian including 1 source packages (erlang), 5 status rows across 5 suites (bookworm, bullseye, forky, sid, trixie): open 4, resolved 1. https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-48858
suse high — https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-48858/

Affected software / configurations for CVE-2026-48858

Vendor Product Version Raw CPE
erlang erlang\/inets >= 5.10.4, < 7.0 cpe:2.3:a:erlang:erlang\/inets:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
erlang erlang\/otp >= 17.4, < 27.3.4.13 cpe:2.3:a:erlang:erlang\/otp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
erlang erlang\/otp >= 28.0, < 28.5.0.2 cpe:2.3:a:erlang:erlang\/otp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
erlang erlang\/otp >= 29.0, < 29.0.2 cpe:2.3:a:erlang:erlang\/otp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
erlang ftp >= 1.0, < 1.2.3.1 cpe:2.3:a:erlang:ftp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
erlang ftp >= 1.2.4, < 1.2.4.1 cpe:2.3:a:erlang:ftp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
erlang ftp >= 1.2.5, < 1.2.6 cpe:2.3:a:erlang:ftp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

References for CVE-2026-48858

cvelogic Threat Intelligence