undicis retry interceptor can deliver a response whose body length does not match the Content-Length header exposed to the application after a retry or resume of a partial response. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, a malicious or faulty upstream can return a partial response with a mismatched framing header, close the socket early, and have the retry interceptor assemble a body of a different length while the original Content-Length stays attached. Applications that use the retry interceptor and forward upstream headers and bodies downstream, such as proxies or gateways, may then emit an invalid HTTP response with a stale Content-Length, leading to downstream response desynchronization, connection hangs, or response corruption. Exploitation requires the retry interceptor enabled, an upstream returning a mismatched partial response, and a downstream forwarder that does not remove or recalculate Content-Length. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undici | Nodejs | * | 6.28.0 (excluding) |
| Undici | Nodejs | 7.0.0 (including) | 7.29.0 (excluding) |
| Undici | Nodejs | 8.0.0 (including) | 8.9.0 (excluding) |
| Node-undici | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
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.