HTTP response splitting via unsanitized Content-Type value
Published Mar 17, 2026 · Updated Mar 17, 2026
CRLF injection in libsoup on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 through 10 allows attackers to inject HTTP headers through a Content-Type value. soup_message_headers_set_content_type() accepts a caller-controlled value without neutralizing embedded carriage-return and line-feed characters, allowing additional header fields to be created. Exploitation depends on a consuming application passing attacker-controlled content-type data; the bounded outcomes are forged HTTP headers and response splitting.
Summary
What happened
CRLF injection in libsoup on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 through 10 allows attackers to inject HTTP headers through a Content-Type value. soup_message_headers_set_content_type() accepts a caller-controlled value without neutralizing embedded carriage-return and line-feed characters, allowing additional header fields to be created. Exploitation depends on a consuming application passing attacker-controlled content-type data; the bounded outcomes are forged HTTP headers and response splitting.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2026-3634
- Published
- Mar 17, 2026
- Updated
- Mar 17, 2026
- Vendor
- 389 Directory Server
- Product
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- Classifications
- CWE-93
- Attack vector
- network
- Privileges
- admin
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Mar 17, 2026CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Mar 17, 2026Record 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?
Affected versions are unavailable in this record. Check the vendor advisory for version and patch details.
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
- GNOME libsoup issue 485 proof of conceptproof of concept · unverified
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