CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-43513

Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity

Published: May 12, 2026 | Modified: Jun 17, 2026
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
5.3 MODERATE
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity vulnerability in LockOutRealm in Apache Tomcat.

This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.21, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.54, from 9.0.0.M1 through 9.0.117, from 8.5.0 through 8.5.100, from 7.0.0 through 7.0.109. Older unsupported versions may also be affected.

Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.22, 10.1.55 or 9.0.118 which fix the issue.

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

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
TomcatApache7.0.0 (including)7.0.109 (including)
TomcatApache8.5.0 (including)8.5.100 (including)
TomcatApache9.0.0 (including)9.0.118 (excluding)
TomcatApache10.1.0 (including)10.1.55 (excluding)
TomcatApache11.0.0 (including)11.0.22 (excluding)
Tomcat10Ubuntuesm-apps/noble*
Tomcat10Ubuntuesm-apps/resolute*
Tomcat10Ubuntunoble*
Tomcat10Ubuntuquesting*
Tomcat10Ubunturesolute*
Tomcat10Ubuntuupstream*
Tomcat11Ubuntuesm-apps/resolute*
Tomcat11Ubuntuquesting*
Tomcat11Ubunturesolute*
Tomcat11Ubuntuupstream*
Tomcat6Ubuntuesm-infra-legacy/trusty*
Tomcat6Ubuntuupstream*
Tomcat7Ubuntuesm-apps-legacy/xenial*
Tomcat7Ubuntuesm-infra-legacy/trusty*
Tomcat7Ubuntuupstream*
Tomcat8Ubuntuesm-apps/bionic*
Tomcat8Ubuntuesm-infra-legacy/xenial*
Tomcat8Ubuntuupstream*
Tomcat9Ubuntuesm-apps/bionic*
Tomcat9Ubuntuesm-apps/focal*
Tomcat9Ubuntuesm-apps/jammy*
Tomcat9Ubuntuesm-apps/noble*
Tomcat9Ubuntuesm-apps/resolute*
Tomcat9Ubuntujammy*
Tomcat9Ubuntunoble*
Tomcat9Ubuntuquesting*
Tomcat9Ubunturesolute*
Tomcat9Ubuntuupstream*

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.

References