Request smuggling via conflicting message-length headers
Published Feb 8, 2020 · Updated Aug 6, 2024
HTTP request smuggling in Go net/http before 1.4.3 allows remote attackers to desynchronize request processing via conflicting headers. The request parser in net/http/transfer.go accepted both Transfer-Encoding and Content-Length, discarded Content-Length, and continued with chunked framing instead of rejecting the ambiguous request. An unauthenticated attacker must reach a Go HTTP server through an intermediary that parses the message differently; the resulting desynchronization lets injected bytes be processed as another request.
Summary
What happened
HTTP request smuggling in Go net/http before 1.4.3 allows remote attackers to desynchronize request processing via conflicting headers. The request parser in net/http/transfer.go accepted both Transfer-Encoding and Content-Length, discarded Content-Length, and continued with chunked framing instead of rejecting the ambiguous request. An unauthenticated attacker must reach a Go HTTP server through an intermediary that parses the message differently; the resulting desynchronization lets injected bytes be processed as another request.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2015-5741
- Published
- Feb 8, 2020
- Updated
- Aug 6, 2024
- Vendor
- Unknown vendor
- Product
- Unknown product
- Classifications
- CWE-444, CAPEC-33, T1190
- Attack vector
- network
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Feb 8, 2020CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Aug 6, 2024Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Affected products and versions are unavailable in this record.
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Weakness, pattern, technique
Public exploit references
No public exploit references are available in this record.
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo