An issue was discovered in Squid before 4.13 and 5.x before 5.0.4. Due to incorrect data validation, HTTP Request Smuggling attacks may succeed against HTTP and HTTPS traffic. This leads to cache poisoning. This allows any client, including browser scripts, to bypass local security and poison the proxy cache and any downstream caches with content from an arbitrary source. When configured for relaxed header parsing (the default), Squid relays headers containing whitespace characters to upstream servers. When this occurs as a prefix to a Content-Length header, the frame length specified will be ignored by Squid (allowing for a conflicting length to be used from another Content-Length header) but relayed upstream.
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.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Squid | Squid-cache | * | 4.13 (excluding) |
| Squid | Squid-cache | 5.0 (including) | 5.0.4 (excluding) |
| Squid | Ubuntu | devel | * |
| Squid | Ubuntu | focal | * |
| Squid | Ubuntu | groovy | * |
| Squid | Ubuntu | hirsute | * |
| Squid | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
| Squid3 | Ubuntu | bionic | * |
| Squid3 | Ubuntu | precise/esm | * |
| Squid3 | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
| Squid3 | Ubuntu | xenial | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | RedHat | squid-7:3.5.20-17.el7_9.4 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | RedHat | squid:4-8020020200827100059.4cda2c84 | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.0 Update Services for SAP Solutions | RedHat | squid:4-8000020200827105727.f8e95b4e | * |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.1 Extended Update Support | RedHat | squid:4-8010020200827104751.c27ad7f8 | * |
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.