CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2019-20372

Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')

Published: Jan 09, 2020 | Modified: Apr 06, 2022
CVSS 3.x
5.3
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS 2.x
4.3 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
5.3 MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

NGINX before 1.17.7, with certain error_page configurations, allows HTTP request smuggling, as demonstrated by the ability of an attacker to read unauthorized web pages in environments where NGINX is being fronted by a load balancer.

Weakness

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.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Nginx F5 * 1.17.7 (excluding)
Red Hat Ansible Tower 3.6 for RHEL 7 RedHat ansible-tower-36/ansible-tower:3.6.7-1 *
Red Hat Ansible Tower 3.7 for RHEL 7 RedHat ansible-tower-37/ansible-tower-rhel7:3.7.5-1 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat nginx:1.16-8030020201124104955.229f0a1c *
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat rh-nginx116-nginx-1:1.16.1-4.el7.1 *
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.6 EUS RedHat rh-nginx116-nginx-1:1.16.1-4.el7.1 *
Red Hat Software Collections for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.7 EUS RedHat rh-nginx116-nginx-1:1.16.1-4.el7.1 *
Nginx Ubuntu bionic *
Nginx Ubuntu disco *
Nginx Ubuntu eoan *
Nginx Ubuntu trusty *
Nginx Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Nginx Ubuntu upstream *
Nginx Ubuntu xenial *

Extended Description

HTTP requests or responses (“messages”) can be malformed or unexpected in ways that cause web servers or clients to interpret the messages in different ways than intermediary HTTP agents such as load balancers, reverse proxies, web caching proxies, application firewalls, etc. For example, an adversary may be able to add duplicate or different header fields that a client or server might interpret as one set of messages, whereas the intermediary might interpret the same sequence of bytes as a different set of messages. For example, discrepancies can arise in how to handle duplicate headers like two Transfer-encoding (TE) or two Content-length (CL), or the malicious HTTP message will have different headers for TE and CL. The inconsistent parsing and interpretation of messages can allow the adversary to “smuggle” a message to the client/server without the intermediary being aware of it. This weakness is usually the result of the usage of outdated or incompatible HTTP protocol versions in the HTTP agents.

Potential Mitigations

References