Skip to content

ex_webrtc client-role handshake is missing DTLS peer fingerprint validation

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 4, 2026 in elixir-webrtc/ex_webrtc • Updated May 15, 2026

Package

erlang ex_webrtc (Erlang)

Affected versions

< 0.15.1
= 0.16.0

Patched versions

0.15.1
0.16.1

Description

Summary

Missing DTLS peer certificate fingerprint validation in the DTLS client (active) role removes one side of WebRTC's mutual authentication. The bug is not independently exploitable for media interception in standard deployments, but enables a full man-in-the-middle attack when chained with insecure signalling or a peer with similar validation gaps.

Details

ex_webrtc validates the DTLS peer's certificate fingerprint against the value advertised in the SDP offer/answer when acting as the DTLS server (passive role). When acting as the DTLS client (active role) -- the default when answering a remote offer with a=setup:actpass, which is what browsers always send -- the fingerprint check was skipped on the handshake-completion code path that returns no outgoing packets. This is the most common deployment mode (e.g., an SFU or media server answering a browser's offer).

All released versions prior to 0.15.1 and 0.16.1 are affected. No backports to older lines are planned -- users should upgrade to 0.15.1 or 0.16.1.

Impact

The bug eliminates one half of WebRTC's mutual DTLS authentication. The security of the media and data-channel encryption then rests entirely on the remote peer's fingerprint check.

On its own, the bug does not allow:

  • Passive eavesdropping on SRTP media.
  • A network-positioned attacker to intercept media against a standards-compliant browser peer over a TLS-protected signalling channel -- the browser's fingerprint check prevents the second leg of the MITM from succeeding.

The bug does enable a full MITM on media and data channels when combined with any of:

  • Insecure signalling (HTTP / plain WebSocket) allowing SDP rewrite in transit.
  • A compromised or malicious signalling server.
  • A peer implementation with a similar fingerprint-validation gap.

Both audio/video media (SRTP) and data channels (SCTP-over-DTLS) are affected.

Patches

  • 0.15.1 (for the 0.15.x line)
  • 0.16.1 (for the 0.16.x line)

Workarounds

None. Upgrade is required.

Resources

References

@sgfn sgfn published to elixir-webrtc/ex_webrtc May 4, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 8, 2026
Reviewed May 8, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 14, 2026
Last updated May 15, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity High
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(12th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Certificate Validation

The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-44700

GHSA ID

GHSA-qwfw-ggxw-577c

Source code

Credits

Dependabot alerts are not supported on some or all of the ecosystems on this advisory.

Learn more about GitHub language support

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.