Request smuggling via unchecked conflicting body lengths
Published Jan 27, 2020 · Updated Aug 4, 2024
HTTP request smuggling in JetBrains Ktor before 1.3.0 allows remote attackers to desynchronize proxy and backend request parsing. The CIO body decoder accepted chunked encoding without comparing decoded bytes with Content-Length, leaving different message boundaries across the proxy and backend. Exploitation requires a proxy that interprets conflicting headers or lone line-feed separators differently, enabling unauthorized backend requests or response mix-ups.
Summary
What happened
HTTP request smuggling in JetBrains Ktor before 1.3.0 allows remote attackers to desynchronize proxy and backend request parsing. The CIO body decoder accepted chunked encoding without comparing decoded bytes with Content-Length, leaving different message boundaries across the proxy and backend. Exploitation requires a proxy that interprets conflicting headers or lone line-feed separators differently, enabling unauthorized backend requests or response mix-ups.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2020-5207
- Published
- Jan 27, 2020
- Updated
- Aug 4, 2024
- Vendor
- JetBrains
- Product
- Ktor
- Classifications
- CWE-444, CAPEC-33, T1190
- Attack vector
- network
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Jan 27, 2020CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Aug 4, 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?
Compare these published version ranges with your installed build and any vendor patches.
- Affected versionversion=< 1.3.0
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Published CVSS scores
CVSS describes severity. EPSS estimates exploitation probability.
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