Skip to content

Hackney: `ssl:connect/2` post-handshake upgrade has no timeout

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 25, 2026 in benoitc/hackney • Updated Jun 26, 2026

Package

hackney (Erlang)

Affected versions

>= 0.10.0, < 4.0.1

Patched versions

4.0.1

Description

Summary

The SOCKS5 transport in src/hackney_socks5.erl correctly applies the caller-supplied timeout to the SOCKS5 negotiation phase, but then upgrades the tunnel to TLS using ssl:connect/2 (the two-argument form), which defaults to infinity. The Timeout value is in scope at that call site but is never forwarded. A hostile or man-in-the-middled SOCKS5 proxy that completes the SOCKS5 handshake normally and then stalls the TLS exchange will pin the connecting Erlang process and socket indefinitely, regardless of any connect_timeout or recv_timeout options the caller set.

Details

In src/hackney_socks5.erl, line 65, after the SOCKS5 negotiation succeeds, the code calls:

ssl:connect(Socket, SSLOpts)

The three-argument form ssl:connect/3 takes a timeout; the two-argument form used here defaults to infinity. The variable Timeout (already used for SOCKS5 recv calls earlier in the same function) is simply not passed. The bytes that drive the TLS handshake on the upstream side of the tunnel come from whatever endpoint the proxy connects to. A hostile proxy can complete SOCKS5 normally, then either stay silent or send a partial ServerHello and stop, keeping ssl:connect/2 blocked forever. No certificate forgery is needed.

PoC

  1. Stand up a SOCKS5 proxy that completes the SOCKS5 greeting and CONNECT reply normally, then goes silent (never sends a TLS ServerHello).
  2. Issue an HTTPS request through it via hackney with connect_timeout and recv_timeout set to a short value (e.g. 2000 ms).
  3. Observe the calling process remains blocked well past the configured timeout, consuming a process and socket until killed externally.

Impact

Denial of service via unbounded process and socket consumption. Affects hackney 0.10.0 through 4.0.0 for any HTTPS request routed through a SOCKS5 proxy. The connect_timeout and recv_timeout options give a false sense of safety since they are not honored during the TLS upgrade. CVSS v4.0: 8.2 (HIGH).

Resources

References

@benoitc benoitc published to benoitc/hackney May 25, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 25, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 26, 2026
Reviewed Jun 26, 2026
Last updated Jun 26, 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 Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High
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:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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.
(49th percentile)

Weaknesses

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-47071

GHSA ID

GHSA-gp9c-pm5m-5cxr

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.