CVE-2026-48856
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
httpc leaks Authorization header to cross-origin redirect targets
rank 22 = 0 + 16 + 0 + 6 + 0
rank@v1 · backlog
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.00335 · without this subject the record ranks 22
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 6.5, from NVD · without this subject the record ranks 6
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 22
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
6 products in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 16
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 22
$10,200 = $4.99M incident cost x 0.6121449559255632 exposure x 0.00335 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
This record is one instance of CWE-601, url redirection to untrusted site ('open redirect'). The index holds 1738 prior instances of this class, 2 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. taxonomy@v1
Sources disagree here.
Both shown, dated. We don't pick winners. disagreement-rules@v1
Running Erlang OTP? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (needs a Practitioner account)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
AcceptDeferPatch by…Not affectedMitigatedChoose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
Affected & Fixed Versions as published
Show all 6 published ranges
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
What it is stated by the CNA
Sensitive Data Exposure vulnerability in Erlang OTP inets (httpc_response module) allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data. The httpc client forwards the Authorization and Proxy-Authorization request headers to redirect targets without checking whether the redirect crosses an origin boundary. httpc_response:redirect/2 constructs the redirected request by updating only the host field of the header record; all other fields (including authorization and proxy_authorization) are copied verbatim. receipt
Read the rest of the CNA's description
The redirect target host is never compared against the original host. autoredirect defaults to true, so this affects all httpc callers that do not explicitly disable automatic redirects. An attacker who controls a server that the victim contacts via httpc can issue a cross-origin 3xx redirect to a server they also control. The Authorization header (including Basic credentials derived from URL userinfo via httpc_request:handle_user_info/2) is forwarded to the redirect target, allowing credential theft. The same applies to the Proxy-Authorization header. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/inets/src/http_client/httpc_response.erl. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 29.0.2, OTP 28.5.0.2 and OTP 27.3.4.13, corresponding to inets from 5.10 before 9.7.1, 9.6.2.2 and 9.3.2.6.
NVD's analysis a second authority
- severity
- 6.5 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- weakness
- CWE-601
- affected versions
- erlang\/inets >= 5.10 < 9.3.2.6; erlang\/inets >= 9.6 < 9.6.2.2; erlang\/inets >= 9.7 < 9.7.1; and 3 more, listed in full below
- also scored by
- 7.1 CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/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
The CNA scored it 7.1 and NVD 6.5. Both are shown because both were published; we do not pick one.
check it yourself github.com cna.erlef.org osv.dev erlang.org github.com receipt
Movement the material steps
Show all 3 observations
3 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt
The full biography
The record had been public for 6 days when this index was last written.
The pattern, elsewhere
This record is one instance of CWE-601, url redirection to untrusted site ('open redirect'). The index holds 1738 prior instances of this class, 2 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. [email protected]
"Matches n of m" counts the attributes the two records can both be compared on: the CVSS metrics they share a version of, any weakness class beyond this one, and the vendor. fit-rules@v1
1738 records in this class held. The six above are drawn from the ones CISA has listed as exploited, ranked by how much of the record matches this one. That is why every one of them is KEV-listed: the pool is, so the colour on those spokes says nothing the pool has not already said.
No curated product neighbourhood is held for this product, so the records above are the nearest this index can name. The neighbourhood table covers a small set of products and is extended by hand.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
None. No alias set, and nothing in the corpus cites this identifier or shares its product family within 60 days.
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2026-48856.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.