CVE Intelligence
High Denial of service

CVE-2026-70399 — httpd does not enforce the documented default max_clients connection limit

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Erlang/OTP inets httpd allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to cause denial of service by opening and holding open a large number of connections. The max_clients option is documented to default to 150, and the inets hardening guide presents that limit as the first layer of denial-of-service defence, but a server that does not set it explicitly accepts an unlimited number of simultaneous connections. Establishing the connections is sufficient; no valid request and no authentication are required. The accept gate in httpd_manager:handle_new_connection/4 reads the option with httpd_util:lookup/2, which returns undefined when the key is absent, rather than the three-argument form carrying the 150 default that the neighbouring get_ustate/2 uses. Erlang term ordering places every integer before every atom, so the Count =< Max guard holds for any connection count and the server never returns {reject, busy}. Each accepted connection occupies a worker process and a socket for as long as it is held, driving the node towards process, memory and file descriptor exhaustion. Servers that set max_clients explicitly are unaffected, because a configured value is applied as intended. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.17, from OTP 28.0 before OTP 28.5.0.6, and from OTP 29.0 before OTP 29.0.6, corresponding to inets from 5.10 before 9.3.2.7, from 9.4 before 9.6.2.3, and from 9.7 before 9.7.2.

Published Sep 1, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: EEF

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.9% (30-day exploitation probability)+9
  • Technical severity (high)+6
  • Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.93%
ahead of 60% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Erlang
Erlang/otp
CVSS base
8.7
High · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Erlang Erlang/otp).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (denial of service), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Erlang Erlang/otp ≥ 17.0 and < 27.3.4.17≥ 28.0 and < 28.5.0.6≥ 29.0 and < 29.0.6≥ 5.10 and < 9.3.2.7≥ 9.4 and < 9.6.2.3≥ 9.7 and < 9.7.2≥ d9674f32811cd5bb02b0d6656053b5ee226bc74c Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
X
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent)
None
Integrity (subsequent)
None
Availability (subsequent)
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
8.7 CVSS 4.0 High — — 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.7 CVSS 4.0 High — — EEF via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/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 (score shown at the top: 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-770 · Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Track CPU/memory spikes and availability drops correlated with request patterns.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSresource metrics

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · erlang/otp
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 8.7
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Sep 1, 2026 · EEF

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

7 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Erlang
every CVE for this vendor
Denial of service
same class
CWE-770
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-96596 erl_tar:extract/2 loops forever on a GNU sparse member with a trailing hole 1d
  • CVE-2026-94200 TLS 1.3 client ticket store crashed by NewSessionTicket with empty early_data extension in ssl 1d
  • CVE-2026-105236 TLS 1.2 session resumption in ssl crosses SNI virtual-host client-certificate trust boundaries 1d
  • CVE-2026-89422 TLS 1.3 client skips server authentication when ServerHello carries an unsolicited pre_shared_key extension 23d
  • CVE-2026-65634 Superlinear CPU denial of service in Erlang/OTP ASN.1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER decoder 23d
  • CVE-2026-68956 SSH daemon allocates unbounded idle session channels, bypassing max_channels 23d

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-70399 is "httpd does not enforce the documented default max_clients connection limit", rated High. It affects Erlang/otp (Erlang); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 8.7 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.93% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.