CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-20069

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

Published: Mar 04, 2026 | Modified: Mar 04, 2026
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

A vulnerability in the VPN web services component of Cisco Secure Firewall Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software and Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct browser-based attacks against users of an affected device.

This vulnerability is due to improper validation of HTTP requests. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading a user to visit a website that is designed to pass malicious HTTP requests to a device that is running Cisco Secure Firewall ASA Software or Cisco Secure FTD Software and has web services endpoints supporting VPN features enabled. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to reflect malicious input from the affected device to the browser that is in use and conduct browser-based attacks, including cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks. The attacker is not able to directly impact the affected device.

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.

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