CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2022-24766

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

Published: Mar 21, 2022 | Modified: Mar 29, 2022
CVSS 3.x
9.8
CRITICAL
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
7.5 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

mitmproxy is an interactive, SSL/TLS-capable intercepting proxy. In mitmproxy 7.0.4 and below, a malicious client or server is able to perform HTTP request smuggling attacks through mitmproxy. This means that a malicious client/server could smuggle a request/response through mitmproxy as part of another request/responses HTTP message body. While mitmproxy would only see one request, the target server would see multiple requests. A smuggled request is still captured as part of another requests body, but it does not appear in the request list and does not go through the usual mitmproxy event hooks, where users may have implemented custom access control checks or input sanitization. Unless mitmproxy is used to protect an HTTP/1 service, no action is required. The vulnerability has been fixed in mitmproxy 8.0.0 and above. There are currently no known workarounds.

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
Mitmproxy Mitmproxy * 7.0.4 (including)
Mitmproxy Ubuntu bionic *
Mitmproxy Ubuntu impish *
Mitmproxy Ubuntu kinetic *
Mitmproxy Ubuntu lunar *
Mitmproxy Ubuntu trusty *
Mitmproxy 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