CWE-113
Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting')
The product receives data from an HTTP agent/component (e.g., web server, proxy, browser, etc.), but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CR and LF characters before the data is included in outgoing HTTP headers.
CVE-2024-54021 (GCVE-0-2024-54021)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2025-01-14 14:09
Modified
2025-08-06 18:04
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
EPSS score ?
CWE
- CWE-113 - Execute unauthorized code or commands
Summary
An Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('http response splitting') vulnerability [CWE-113] in Fortinet FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.6.0, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.4.5 may allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to bypass the file filter via crafted HTTP headers.
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▼ | Fortinet | FortiOS |
Version: 7.6.0 Version: 7.4.0 ≤ 7.4.4 Version: 7.2.0 ≤ 7.2.8 cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.6.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.4.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.4.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.4.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.4.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.4.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.8:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.7:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
||||||
|
|||||||||
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2024-54021",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-01-15T14:49:26.902314Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-01-15T14:49:47.028Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.6.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.4.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.4.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.4.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.4.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.4.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.8:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.7:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe:2.3:o:fortinet:fortios:7.2.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "FortiOS",
"vendor": "Fortinet",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "7.6.0"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "7.4.4",
"status": "affected",
"version": "7.4.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "7.2.8",
"status": "affected",
"version": "7.2.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"cpes": [],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "FortiProxy",
"vendor": "Fortinet",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "7.4.5",
"status": "affected",
"version": "7.4.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "7.2.11",
"status": "affected",
"version": "7.2.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "An Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers (\u0027http response splitting\u0027) vulnerability [CWE-113] in Fortinet FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.6.0, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.4.5 may allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to bypass the file filter via crafted HTTP headers."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "LOW",
"baseScore": 6.4,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L/E:F/RL:X/RC:C",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS"
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-113",
"description": "Execute unauthorized code or commands",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-06T18:04:37.181Z",
"orgId": "6abe59d8-c742-4dff-8ce8-9b0ca1073da8",
"shortName": "fortinet"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-24-282",
"url": "https://fortiguard.fortinet.com/psirt/FG-IR-24-282"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Please upgrade to FortiSASE version 24.3.c or above \nPlease upgrade to FortiOS version 7.6.1 or above \nPlease upgrade to FortiOS version 7.4.5 or above \nPlease upgrade to FortiOS version 7.2.9 or above \nPlease upgrade to FortiProxy version 7.4.6 or above \nPlease upgrade to FortiProxy version 7.2.12 or above"
}
]
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "6abe59d8-c742-4dff-8ce8-9b0ca1073da8",
"assignerShortName": "fortinet",
"cveId": "CVE-2024-54021",
"datePublished": "2025-01-14T14:09:48.859Z",
"dateReserved": "2024-11-27T15:20:39.890Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-06T18:04:37.181Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
CVE-2025-40927 (GCVE-0-2025-40927)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2025-08-29 00:10
Modified
2025-08-29 13:18
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
EPSS score ?
CWE
- CWE-113 - Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting')
Summary
CGI::Simple versions before 1.282 for Perl has a HTTP response splitting flaw
This vulnerability is a confirmed HTTP response splitting flaw in CGI::Simple that allows HTTP response header injection, which can be used for reflected XSS or open redirect under certain conditions.
Although some validation exists, it can be bypassed using URL-encoded values, allowing an attacker to inject untrusted content into the response via query parameters.
As a result, an attacker can inject a line break (e.g. %0A) into the parameter value, causing the server to split the HTTP response and inject arbitrary headers or even an HTML/JavaScript body, leading to reflected cross-site scripting (XSS), open redirect or other attacks.
The issue documented in CVE-2010-4410 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2010-4410 is related but the fix was incomplete.
Impact
By injecting %0A (newline) into a query string parameter, an attacker can:
* Break the current HTTP header
* Inject a new header or entire body
* Deliver a script payload that is reflected in the server’s response
That can lead to the following attacks:
* reflected XSS
* open redirect
* cache poisoning
* header manipulation
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MANWAR | CGI::Simple |
Version: 0 < 1.282 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "LOW",
"baseScore": 7.3,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-40927",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-08-29T13:18:01.758812Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-29T13:18:32.704Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://cpan.org/modules",
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"packageName": "CGI-Simple",
"product": "CGI::Simple",
"programFiles": [
"lib/CGI/Simple.pm"
],
"repo": "https://github.com/manwar/CGI--Simple",
"vendor": "MANWAR",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "1.282",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "Maxim Kosenko"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "CGI::Simple versions before 1.282 for Perl has a HTTP response splitting flaw\u003cbr\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis vulnerability is a \u003cstrong\u003econfirmed HTTP response splitting\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;flaw in \u003ccode\u003eCGI::Simple\u003c/code\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan style=\"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);\"\u003ethat allows HTTP response header injection, which can be used for reflected XSS or open redirect under certain conditions\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough some validation exists, it can be bypassed using URL-encoded values, allowing an attacker to inject untrusted content into the response via query parameters.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a result, an attacker can inject a line break (e.g. \u003ccode\u003e%0A\u003c/code\u003e) into the parameter value, causing the server to split the HTTP response and inject arbitrary headers or even an HTML/JavaScript body, leading to reflected cross-site scripting (XSS), open redirect or other attacks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe issue documented in\u0026nbsp;\u003ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2010-4410\"\u003eCVE-2010-4410\u003c/a\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;is related but the fix was incomplete.\u003c/span\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpact\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy injecting \u003ccode\u003e%0A\u003c/code\u003e\u0026nbsp;(newline) into a query string parameter, an attacker can:\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003eBreak the current HTTP header\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eInject a new header or entire body\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eDeliver a script payload that is reflected in the server\u2019s response\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat can lead to the following attacks:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003ereflected XSS\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eopen redirect\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003ecache poisoning\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eheader manipulation\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cbr\u003e"
}
],
"value": "CGI::Simple versions before 1.282 for Perl has a HTTP response splitting flaw\nThis vulnerability is a confirmed HTTP response splitting\u00a0flaw in CGI::Simple\u00a0that allows HTTP response header injection, which can be used for reflected XSS or open redirect under certain conditions.\n\nAlthough some validation exists, it can be bypassed using URL-encoded values, allowing an attacker to inject untrusted content into the response via query parameters.\n\n\n\nAs a result, an attacker can inject a line break (e.g. %0A) into the parameter value, causing the server to split the HTTP response and inject arbitrary headers or even an HTML/JavaScript body, leading to reflected cross-site scripting (XSS), open redirect or other attacks.\n\nThe issue documented in CVE-2010-4410 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2010-4410 is related but the fix was incomplete.\n\nImpact\n\nBy injecting %0A\u00a0(newline) into a query string parameter, an attacker can:\n\n * Break the current HTTP header\n * Inject a new header or entire body\n * Deliver a script payload that is reflected in the server\u2019s response\nThat can lead to the following attacks:\n\n * reflected XSS\n * open redirect\n * cache poisoning\n * header manipulation"
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-34",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-34 HTTP Response Splitting"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-113",
"description": "CWE-113 Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers (\u0027HTTP Request/Response Splitting\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-29T00:10:07.161Z",
"orgId": "9b29abf9-4ab0-4765-b253-1875cd9b441e",
"shortName": "CPANSec"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://metacpan.org/release/MANWAR/CGI-Simple-1.281/source/lib/CGI/Simple.pm#L1031-1035"
},
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://metacpan.org/release/MANWAR/CGI-Simple-1.281/diff/MANWAR/CGI-Simple-1.282/lib/CGI/Simple.pm"
},
{
"tags": [
"technical-description"
],
"url": "https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/HTTP_Response_Splitting"
},
{
"tags": [
"technical-description"
],
"url": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7230#section-3"
},
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2004-2320"
},
{
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://rt.perl.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=21951"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "Upgrade CGI::Simple to version 1.282 or higher"
}
],
"value": "Upgrade CGI::Simple to version 1.282 or higher"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "CGI::Simple versions 1.281 and earlier for Perl has a HTTP response splitting flaw",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "9b29abf9-4ab0-4765-b253-1875cd9b441e",
"assignerShortName": "CPANSec",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-40927",
"datePublished": "2025-08-29T00:10:07.161Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-04-16T09:05:34.362Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-29T13:18:32.704Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
CVE-2025-42934 (GCVE-0-2025-42934)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2025-08-12 02:04
Modified
2025-08-12 14:06
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
EPSS score ?
CWE
- CWE-113 - Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers
Summary
SAP S/4HANA Supplier invoice is vulnerable to CRLF Injection. An attacker with user-level privileges can bypass the allowlist and insert untrusted sites into the 'Trusted Sites' configuration by injecting line feed (LF) characters into application inputs. This vulnerability has a low impact on the application's integrity and no impact on confidentiality or availability.
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAP_SE | SAP S/4HANA (Supplier invoice) |
Version: S4CORE 102 Version: 103 Version: 104 Version: 105 Version: 106 Version: 107 Version: 108 Version: 109 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-42934",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-08-12T14:06:03.532501Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-12T14:06:11.798Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "SAP S/4HANA (Supplier invoice)",
"vendor": "SAP_SE",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "S4CORE 102"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "103"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "104"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "105"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "106"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "107"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "108"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "109"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eSAP S/4HANA Supplier invoice is vulnerable to CRLF Injection. An attacker with user-level privileges can bypass the allowlist and insert untrusted sites into the \u0027Trusted Sites\u0027 configuration by injecting line feed (LF) characters into application inputs. This vulnerability has a low impact on the application\u0027s integrity and no impact on confidentiality or availability.\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "SAP S/4HANA Supplier invoice is vulnerable to CRLF Injection. An attacker with user-level privileges can bypass the allowlist and insert untrusted sites into the \u0027Trusted Sites\u0027 configuration by injecting line feed (LF) characters into application inputs. This vulnerability has a low impact on the application\u0027s integrity and no impact on confidentiality or availability."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 4.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "LOW",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-113",
"description": "CWE-113: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers",
"lang": "eng",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-12T02:04:50.681Z",
"orgId": "e4686d1a-f260-4930-ac4c-2f5c992778dd",
"shortName": "sap"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://me.sap.com/notes/3616863"
},
{
"url": "https://url.sap/sapsecuritypatchday"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "CRLF Injection vulnerability in SAP S/4HANA (Supplier invoice)",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "e4686d1a-f260-4930-ac4c-2f5c992778dd",
"assignerShortName": "sap",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-42934",
"datePublished": "2025-08-12T02:04:50.681Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-04-16T13:25:34.582Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-08-12T14:06:11.798Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
Mitigation
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Input Validation
Description:
- Construct HTTP headers very carefully, avoiding the use of non-validated input data.
Mitigation ID: MIT-5
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Input Validation
Description:
- 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. If an input does not strictly conform to specifications, reject it or transform it into something that conforms.
- 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.
Mitigation ID: MIT-30
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Output Encoding
Description:
- Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
Mitigation ID: MIT-20
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Input Validation
Description:
- Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
CAPEC-105: HTTP Request Splitting
['An adversary abuses the flexibility and discrepancies in the parsing and interpretation of HTTP Request messages by different intermediary HTTP agents (e.g., load balancer, reverse proxy, web caching proxies, application firewalls, etc.) to split a single HTTP request into multiple unauthorized and malicious HTTP requests to a back-end HTTP agent (e.g., web server).', 'See CanPrecede relationships for possible consequences.']
CAPEC-31: Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies
This attack relies on the use of HTTP Cookies to store credentials, state information and other critical data on client systems. There are several different forms of this attack. The first form of this attack involves accessing HTTP Cookies to mine for potentially sensitive data contained therein. The second form involves intercepting this data as it is transmitted from client to server. This intercepted information is then used by the adversary to impersonate the remote user/session. The third form is when the cookie's content is modified by the adversary before it is sent back to the server. Here the adversary seeks to convince the target server to operate on this falsified information.
CAPEC-34: HTTP Response Splitting
['An adversary manipulates and injects malicious content, in the form of secret unauthorized HTTP responses, into a single HTTP response from a vulnerable or compromised back-end HTTP agent (e.g., web server) or into an already spoofed HTTP response from an adversary controlled domain/site.', 'See CanPrecede relationships for possible consequences.']
CAPEC-85: AJAX Footprinting
This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.