CVE-2026-69664
Raw vector
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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-69664 is a high-severity Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime (CWE-772) vulnerability in Erlef (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked in the top 49% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-69381
Vulnerability Data
Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime vulnerability in Erlang/OTP inets httpd allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to cause denial of service by sending a request with a chunked body whose chunk-size line is not a hexadecimal number. The worker…
more
serving the connection is never released and no timeout reclaims it, so repeating the request across connections occupies every available worker and denies service to legitimate clients. No authentication is required and the default configuration is affected. The chunk-size line must arrive in a write separate from the headers. When the body accompanies the headers, httpd_request_handler:handle_body/3 calls http_chunk:decode/3 inside a try ... catch throw:Error, so the {error, {chunk_size, _}} thrown by http_chunk:decode_size/4 is answered with 400 Bad Request. When the chunk size arrives later, the decoder is resumed through a bare catch in httpd_request_handler:handle_info/2, which converts the throw into a return value rather than raising it; the resulting error tuple is then treated as the next decoder continuation, the socket is re-armed, and the worker waits for data that never comes. The request timeout has already been cancelled at the point the headers were accepted, and the periodic byte-rate check is only armed when minimum_bytes_per_second is configured, which it is not by default. This issue affects OTP from OTP 18.1.4 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 6.0.3 before 9.3.2.7, from 9.4 before 9.6.2.3, and from 9.7 before 9.7.2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing resource releases through dynamic analysis or stress testing.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate explicit resource-release patterns in code.
Resource-quota allocation limits the blast radius of an unreleased-resource exhaustion condition.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Runtime monitoring may surface resource-exhaustion symptoms but does not address release logic.
Lifecycle management explicitly requires handling resources through end-of-life including release.
Capacity monitoring can detect exhaustion caused by unreleased resources but does not prevent the root defect.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent missing resource-release defects during development.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Explicit information-deletion requirements directly address timely release of resources after use.
Secure-SDLC practices include resource-management reviews, yet the control covers the entire lifecycle, not just this weakness.
Secure-coding rules can mandate explicit resource-release patterns, but the control is broader than this single weakness.
Change-management processes may catch missing de-allocation during reviews, but the control itself does not target resource lifetime.