CVE-2026-86146
12h15 +00:00
CVE の説明
Apache bRPC: HTTP Request Smuggling and Header Injection via Lenient HTTP/1.1 Header Parsing
Inconsistent interpretation of HTTP requests (HTTP request/response smuggling) in the bundled HTTP/1.1 parser of Apache bRPC (version < 1.18.0) on all platforms allows remote attackers to smuggle requests and inject headers when bRPC is deployed behind a proxy or load balancer that parses the same bytes differently. Root Cause: The bRPC fork of http-parser accepts and acts on several HTTP/1.1 header forms that a conforming front-end either rejects or interprets differently, so the framing or the header set of a message can differ between the front-end and bRPC: 1. A space before the colon of framing headers (e.g. Content-Length : 5) is accepted; the value still drives bRPC's framing while the reported field name contains the trailing space. 2. Interior spaces inside a Content-Length value (e.g. Content-Length: 1 3) are skipped, so bRPC reads 13 where a front-end reads 1 or rejects the message (same class as CVE-2022-32213 in Node.js). 3. Obsolete line folding (obs-fold, RFC 7230 3.2.4) of Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding values is accepted, so a folded framing value drives bRPC's framing while a front-end that does not unfold sees a different message. 4. Chunked trailer fields are fed to the same header callbacks as the header section and are merged into the header map like real headers. A front-end only inspects the header section, so any chunked request can smuggle fields such as Authorization or X-Forwarded-For past it. 5. Transfer-Encoding lists with optional whitespace after a comma (e.g. Transfer-Encoding: gzip, chunked) are not recognized as chunked: such requests are rejected, and responses are read until connection close instead of as chunked, causing response desync. Affected Scenarios: bRPC server or client communicating over HTTP/1.1 with a front proxy, load balancer, or any peer that parses the message independently. An attacker able to send requests through the front-end can desynchronize the two parsers to smuggle requests, forge headers (e.g. Authorization, X-Forwarded-For) via chunked trailers, or desynchronize responses. How to Fix: (Choose one of the following options) 1. Upgrade bRPC to version 1.18.0, which fixes this issue. 2. Apply this patch: https://github.com/apache/brpc/pull/3521 Note: After applying the fix, the four header forms above are rejected by default and chunked trailers are dropped instead of merged into the header map. Two gflags are provided for compatibility: http_allow_obs_fold=true restores acceptance of folded Content-Length/Transfer-Encoding values, and http_strict_header_token=true additionally rejects spaces inside any header field name (not only the ones that decide framing). Legitimate clients that do not use these obsolete forms are unaffected.CVE の情報
関連する弱点
| 弱点名 | 出典 | |
|---|---|---|
| Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination. |
メトリクス
| メトリクス | スコア | 深刻度 | CVSS ベクター | 出典 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7.5 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
詳細情報
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Network The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an 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 component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0 |
