Traefik is an HTTP reverse proxy and load balancer. From version 2.11.9 to 2.11.37 and from version 3.1.3 to 3.6.8, there is a potential vulnerability in Traefik managing the Connection header with X-Forwarded headers. When Traefik processes HTTP/1.1 requests, the protection put in place to prevent the removal of Traefik-managed X-Forwarded headers (such as X-Real-Ip, X-Forwarded-Host, X-Forwarded-Port, etc.) via the Connection header does not handle case sensitivity correctly. The Connection tokens are compared case-sensitively against the protected header names, but the actual header deletion operates case-insensitively. As a result, a remote unauthenticated client can use lowercase Connection tokens (e.g. Connection: x-real-ip) to bypass the protection and trigger the removal of Traefik-managed forwarded identity headers. This issue has been patched in versions 2.11.38 and 3.6.9.
Weakness
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traefik | Traefik | 2.11.9 (including) | 2.11.38 (excluding) |
| Traefik | Traefik | 3.1.3 (including) | 3.6.9 (excluding) |
Extended Description
Improperly handled case sensitive data can lead to several possible consequences, including:
Potential Mitigations
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.