GHSA-JP82-JPQV-5VV3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-15 20:38 – Updated: 2026-06-15 20:38Summary
In affected versions, the HTTP request path is not validated before being used to reconstruct request.url. Because request.url is rebuilt by concatenating {scheme}://{host}{path} and re-parsing the result, a path that does not begin with / (for example @google.com) moves the authority boundary during re-parsing, so request.url.hostname and request.url.netloc become attacker-controlled. Code that reads request.url.hostname (rather than the Host header or scope) can therefore be misled into trusting an attacker-supplied host.
Details
When a client requests a path that does not start with /:
GET @google.com HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost
affected versions reconstruct the URL as http://localhost@google.com. Per RFC 3986 §3.2.1, the substring before @ in the authority is userinfo, so re-parsing yields username = "localhost" and hostname = "google.com", with an empty path:
request.url == "http://localhost@google.com"
request.url.hostname == "google.com"
request.url.path == ""
The root cause is that the path is concatenated directly after the host without a separating /, and without validating that it begins with one. Only the Host header was validated when constructing request.url; the path was not.
This requires an ASGI server that forwards a request-target lacking a leading / into scope["path"].
Impact
Any application running an affected version that uses request.url, request.url.netloc, or request.url.hostname for a security-sensitive decision (host-based authorization, redirect/callback base, SSRF target, cache key, audit log) may be affected, when no fronting proxy or load balancer rejects the malformed request-target first.
Note that this is less exploitable than GHSA-86qp-5c8j-p5mr: there, the poison is carried in the Host header, so the real path still routes to a valid endpoint while request.url.path lies. Here, the poison must be carried in the path itself, and that path (@google.com) does not match any registered route, so routing returns 404 and no endpoint handler runs. The exposure is limited to code that reads request.url before routing - notably middleware - or in 404/exception handlers.
Mitigation
Upgrade to a patched version, which prevents the request path from crossing into the URL authority. The request above instead yields http://localhost/@google.com with request.url.hostname == "localhost".
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Starlette"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.3.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54282"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-706"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-15T20:38:08Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nIn affected versions, the HTTP request path is not validated before being used to reconstruct `request.url`. Because `request.url` is rebuilt by concatenating `{scheme}://{host}{path}` and re-parsing the result, a path that does not begin with `/` (for example `@google.com`) moves the authority boundary during re-parsing, so `request.url.hostname` and `request.url.netloc` become attacker-controlled. Code that reads `request.url.hostname` (rather than the `Host` header or `scope`) can therefore be misled into trusting an attacker-supplied host.\n\n### Details\n\nWhen a client requests a path that does not start with `/`:\n\n```http\nGET @google.com HTTP/1.1\nHost: localhost\n```\n\naffected versions reconstruct the URL as `http://localhost@google.com`. Per [RFC 3986 \u00a73.2.1](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#section-3.2.1), the substring before `@` in the authority is `userinfo`, so re-parsing yields `username = \"localhost\"` and `hostname = \"google.com\"`, with an empty path:\n\n```text\nrequest.url == \"http://localhost@google.com\"\nrequest.url.hostname == \"google.com\"\nrequest.url.path == \"\"\n```\n\nThe root cause is that the path is concatenated directly after the host without a separating `/`, and without validating that it begins with one. Only the `Host` header was validated when constructing `request.url`; the path was not.\n\nThis requires an ASGI server that forwards a request-target lacking a leading `/` into `scope[\"path\"]`.\n\n### Impact\n\nAny application running an affected version that uses `request.url`, `request.url.netloc`, or `request.url.hostname` for a security-sensitive decision (host-based authorization, redirect/callback base, SSRF target, cache key, audit log) may be affected, when no fronting proxy or load balancer rejects the malformed request-target first.\n\nNote that this is less exploitable than [GHSA-86qp-5c8j-p5mr](https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/security/advisories/GHSA-86qp-5c8j-p5mr): there, the poison is carried in the `Host` header, so the real path still routes to a valid endpoint while `request.url.path` lies. Here, the poison must be carried in the path itself, and that path (`@google.com`) does not match any registered route, so routing returns `404` and no endpoint handler runs. The exposure is limited to code that reads `request.url` before routing - notably middleware - or in 404/exception handlers.\n\n### Mitigation\n\nUpgrade to a patched version, which prevents the request path from crossing into the URL authority. The request above instead yields `http://localhost/@google.com` with `request.url.hostname == \"localhost\"`.",
"id": "GHSA-jp82-jpqv-5vv3",
"modified": "2026-06-15T20:38:09Z",
"published": "2026-06-15T20:38:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/security/advisories/GHSA-jp82-jpqv-5vv3"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Kludex/starlette"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Starlette: Unvalidated request path concatenated into authority poisons request.url.hostname"
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.