Skip to content

CVE-2026-54891

is CVE-2026-54891real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
3.7 Low
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-924
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

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.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-54891
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-54891/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-54891)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-54891"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-54891/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-54891"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

0 verdicts
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-924.