| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Summary
Before version 0.9.0, the HTTP/1 upstream path in pingora-proxy passed the downstream request through upstream_request_filter and wrote it to the upstream without removing the client's Connection header, other hop-by-hop headers, or the headers Connection nominated, although RFC 9110 Section 7.6.1 requires intermediaries to remove them. The HTTP/2 upstream path already removed Connection and related HTTP/1-specific headers. A client could therefore nominate a header that the application adds in upstream_request_filter (for example, Connection: keep-alive, X-Forwarded-For). A downstream HTTP/1 intermediary that honors Connection would then strip the Pingora-added header before it reached the origin.
Impact
Specifically affects chained deployments where an HTTP/1 intermediary between Pingora and the origin processes Connection nominations (for example, Go's net/http/httputil.ReverseProxy) and the origin trusts headers added by that intermediary (for example, X-Forwarded-For for IP-based authorization). A remote, unauthenticated attacker can have those headers removed, potentially bypassing authorization. The reporter demonstrated access to an IP-restricted endpoint using X-Forwarded-For for IP validation on the origin. This is the same class of issue as CVE-2022-31813 in Apache HTTP Server.
Note that Cloudflare CDN customers were unaffected, as no such chained deployment as described above exists with internal Pingora services, and Connection headers are sanitized before arriving at Pingora gateways.
Mitigation:
*
Upgrade to pingora 0.9.0 or later. By default, Pingora now removes hop-by-hop and Connection-nominated headers from upstream requests, and rejects requests whose Connection header nominates Host, X-Forwarded-For, X-Forwarded-Host, X-Forwarded-Proto, or a pseudo-header. This is controlled by PeerOptions::http_upstream_request_policy (HttpUpstreamRequestPolicy). Fix commits: https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora/commit/28c18e6b6b04dd0bd937234e5950049e6d74cded , https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora/commit/ca23f1668eca8e78be7ba62ef0edbd458b40eeee
*
Do not use HttpUpstreamRequestPolicy::preserve() if the origin relies on headers added by Pingora; it restores the old passthrough behavior.
*
If you cannot upgrade: in upstream_request_filter, remove the Connection header and every header it nominates before adding trusted headers. |
| The Web add-on's HTTP server searches the entire request packet for header fields instead of stopping at the end of the header section. A header field name placed in the request body is therefore reported to the server as though it were a header, which lets a client control request framing decisions it should not be able to reach. |
| In Eclipse Vert.x versions [5.0.0,5.0.12] or [5.1.0,5.1.9] or [5.2.0, 5.2.0], the Vert.x HTTP/1.x decoder uses a canonicalization for well known HTTP headers, the canonicalization process interprets well crafted headers as headers of this list, allowing for instance Content-Xength to be interpeted as Content-Length.
This can be exploited for request smuggling purpose.
The impacted component is io.vertx:vertx-core. |
| A flaw was found in Quarkus-HTTP, which incorrectly parses cookies with
certain value-delimiting characters in incoming requests. This issue could
allow an attacker to construct a cookie value to exfiltrate HttpOnly cookie
values or spoof arbitrary additional cookie values, leading to unauthorized
data access or modification. The main threat from this flaw impacts data
confidentiality and integrity. |
| AIOHTTP is an asynchronous HTTP client/server framework for asyncio and Python. Prior to 3.14.4, the pure Python parser accepts ambiguous HTTP request framing. An unauthenticated attacker can consequently smuggle requests when an application uses AIOHTTP_NO_EXTENSIONS or otherwise runs without a standard wheel and an intermediary interprets the framing differently. This issue is fixed in version 3.14.4. |
| Inconsistent interpretation of http requests ('http request/response smuggling') in ASP.NET Core allows an unauthorized attacker to perform tampering over a network. |
| Inconsistent interpretation of http requests ('http request/response smuggling') in ASP.NET Core allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature over a network. |
| A flaw was found in Netty. A remote unauthenticated attacker can exploit a vulnerability in Netty's HTTP/1 to HTTP/2 conversion process. When an HTTP/1 request includes both an absolute-form request-target and a conflicting Host header, Netty incorrectly prioritizes the Host header for the HTTP/2 :authority field, discarding the original request-target authority. This inconsistency can allow an attacker to bypass security controls in Netty-based proxies or gateways, potentially leading to unauthorized access, cache poisoning, or misrouting of requests. |
| A flaw was found in Netty's `netty-codec-http` component. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted HTTP/1.1 chunk-size token that includes post-digit whitespace. This incorrect parsing of the chunk size can lead to HTTP request smuggling. This allows an attacker to bypass security controls or access unauthorized resources in proxy/backend deployments. |
| A flaw was found in Netty's HTTP/1.1 decoder. This vulnerability allows a remote attacker to bypass `Transfer-Encoding` header validation by splitting the `Transfer-Encoding` field across multiple headers, with the last field containing a non-final transfer coding like `gzip` or `deflate`. This bypass can lead to HTTP request smuggling, enabling attackers to bypass security controls, desynchronize request processing, or cause requests to be processed in an unintended context. |
| A flaw was found in BusyBox httpd's reverse proxy feature. When the proxy is configured to forward requests matching a URL prefix to a backend server, only the first HTTP request on a TCP connection has its path rewritten. An attacker can send a pipelined second request that is relayed verbatim to the backend, bypassing the configured path restrictions. This allows accessing arbitrary paths on the backend server that were not intended to be exposed through the proxy. |
| Integer overflow in java/org/apache/tomcat/util/buf/Ascii.java in Apache Tomcat before 6.0.40, 7.x before 7.0.53, and 8.x before 8.0.4, when operated behind a reverse proxy, allows remote attackers to conduct HTTP request smuggling attacks via a crafted Content-Length HTTP header. |
| The package python/cpython from 0 and before 3.6.13, from 3.7.0 and before 3.7.10, from 3.8.0 and before 3.8.8, from 3.9.0 and before 3.9.2 are vulnerable to Web Cache Poisoning via urllib.parse.parse_qsl and urllib.parse.parse_qs by using a vector called parameter cloaking. When the attacker can separate query parameters using a semicolon (;), they can cause a difference in the interpretation of the request between the proxy (running with default configuration) and the server. This can result in malicious requests being cached as completely safe ones, as the proxy would usually not see the semicolon as a separator, and therefore would not include it in a cache key of an unkeyed parameter. |
| Squid is a caching proxy for the Web. From 3.3.0.1 to before 7.6, due to an improper enforcement of behavioral workflow bug, Squid is vulnerable to a Request Smuggling attack against HTTP/1.1 Transfer-Encoding. HTTP header parsing (`src/HttpHeader.cc`) accepted the bare` Transfer-Encoding:` identity form, which the HTTP specification prohibits because any transfer coding must be wrapped within chunked encoding. This problem allows a trusted client to perform an HTTP Request Smuggling attack when HTTP/1.1 is used, bypassing security mechanisms that may be in place between attacker and Squid. When there is an HTTP cache operating prior to the affected Squid, this Request Smuggling attack also allows the attacker to poison that web cache and store arbitrary malicious content at any URL for delivery to other clients' future requests. This issue is fixed in version 7.6. |
| Historically, we have been rather lax about malformed framing-related headers in our HTTP/2 implementation, as they cannot interfere with HTTP/2 framing. However, this makes it possible for our HTTP/2 implementation to forward responses containing such headers to an HTTP/1 client when acting as a reverse proxy. If the HTTP/1 client also does not behave strictly enough, this can result in response smuggling. |
| When an HTTP server handler sends a 2xx response to an HTTP/1 CONNECT request and returns without hijacking the connection, the server improperly continues to read and serve requests from the connection. Since a 2xx response to an HTTP/1 CONNECT converts the connection into a tunnel, the server should not treat the connection as continuing to contain HTTP. The impact of this misbehavior is mostly limited to potential request smuggling, where an intermediate proxy considers the data on the connection to be tunneled and the server considers it to be HTTP. |
| When http.Transport sends an HTTP/1 CONNECT request with a non-empty Request.Body, it writes the body directly to the connection without framing after the request headers. If the server rejects the CONNECT request with a non-2xx keep-alive response, Transport returns the connection to the idle pool. Because CONNECT requests do not have a request body, the server may interpret the trailing body bytes as a subsequent pipelined HTTP/1.1 request on the connection, leaving the pooled connection desynchronized and causing the next caller that reuses it to read the response to the injected request. In reverse proxies (including httputil.ReverseProxy) that forward CONNECT requests through a shared Transport, this can lead to cross-user response poisoning. |
| Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.6, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.46 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.66 did not correctly parse the HTTP transfer-encoding request header in some circumstances leading to the possibility to request smuggling when used with a reverse proxy. Specifically: - Tomcat incorrectly ignored the transfer encoding header if the client declared it would only accept an HTTP/1.0 response; - Tomcat honoured the identify encoding; and - Tomcat did not ensure that, if present, the chunked encoding was the final encoding. |
| In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.30, 8.5.0 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.99 the HTTP header parsing code used an approach to end-of-line parsing that allowed some invalid HTTP headers to be parsed as valid. This led to a possibility of HTTP Request Smuggling if Tomcat was located behind a reverse proxy that incorrectly handled the invalid Transfer-Encoding header in a particular manner. Such a reverse proxy is considered unlikely. |
| In Progress® Telerik® Fiddler® Classic for Windows, versions prior to v6.0.20262.10021, front-end request desynchronization is possible in the proxy request forwarding component. A request that contains both a Content-Length and a Transfer-Encoding header is forwarded with both headers present, while Fiddler frames the body using Transfer-Encoding only. The remaining bytes on the reused client connection are then parsed as a separate pipelined request, so a local threat actor with low privileges can cause a single malformed request to be split into two requests forwarded to the origin server and receive an additional smuggled response, without requiring a vulnerable server. |
