CWE-693
DiscouragedProtection Mechanism Failure
Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Draft
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
1262 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-RMMJ-FF6H-8758
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-21 18:31 – Updated: 2026-07-21 18:31HCL IEM was affected with the Anti Clickjacking XFrame Options Header Missing. It may allow attackers to embed the application in malicious pages and induce unauthorized user actions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-56585"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-21T16:17:17Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "HCL IEM was affected with the Anti Clickjacking XFrame Options Header Missing. It may allow attackers to embed the application in malicious pages and induce unauthorized user actions.",
"id": "GHSA-rmmj-ff6h-8758",
"modified": "2026-07-21T18:31:01Z",
"published": "2026-07-21T18:31:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56585"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.hcl-software.com/csm?id=kb_article\u0026sysparm_article=KB0132378"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RP36-8XQ3-R6C4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-29 17:59 – Updated: 2026-06-12 20:56Summary
NodeVM blocks several dangerous Node.js builtins such as module, worker_threads, cluster, vm, repl, and inspector.
However, the denylist misses process and inspector/promises. Both can be used from sandboxed code to reach host-side execution primitives.
This allows sandboxed code to bypass the intended builtin restrictions and execute code in the host process.
Details
The dangerous builtin denylist is defined in lib/builtin.js. This list does not include:
process
inspector/promises
Non-denied builtins are exposed to the sandbox through:
builtins.set(key, special ? special : vm => vm.readonly(hostRequire(key)));
Because of this, sandboxed code can bypass the expected restrictions in two ways:
require('process').getBuiltinModule('child_process')reloadschild_process, even whenchild_processis excluded.require('inspector/promises')exposes the Inspector protocol and can callRuntime.evaluatein the host process.
PoC
Tested on:
vm2: 3.11.2
Node.js: v25.9.0
Run from the vm2 repository root:
node poc/dangerous-builtin-denylist-rce.js
dangerous-builtin-denylist-rce.js
The PoC first confirms the intended restrictions work:
require("inspector"): BLOCKED
require("child_process"): BLOCKED
Then it bypasses them:
require("process").getBuiltinModule("child_process").execFileSync(...)
This spawns a host child process. It also confirms:
require("inspector/promises").Session().post("Runtime.evaluate", ...)
This evaluates JavaScript in the host process.
Impact
An attacker who can run untrusted JavaScript inside NodeVM with affected builtin settings can escape the sandbox and execute arbitrary code in the host process.
This can lead to full compromise of the application process, including reading files, writing files, spawning processes, and accessing host environment secrets.
(This is not reachable with the default NodeVM configuration where require is disabled or no affected builtins are allowed. It affects applications that allow process, inspector/promises, or the wildcard "*" in require.builtin.)
Suggested fix
Add process and inspector/promises to the dangerous builtin blocklist.
Also consider blocking dangerous builtin families by prefix, for example blocking both:
inspector
inspector/*
instead of only exact module names.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.11.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "vm2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.11.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-47140"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-29T17:59:23Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-12T15:16:28Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n`NodeVM` blocks several dangerous Node.js builtins such as `module`, `worker_threads`, `cluster`, `vm`, `repl`, and `inspector`.\n\nHowever, the denylist misses `process` and `inspector/promises`. Both can be used from sandboxed code to reach host-side execution primitives.\n\nThis allows sandboxed code to bypass the intended builtin restrictions and execute code in the host process.\n\n## Details\n\nThe dangerous builtin denylist is defined in `lib/builtin.js`. This list does not include:\n\n```text\nprocess\ninspector/promises\n```\n\nNon-denied builtins are exposed to the sandbox through:\n\n```js\nbuiltins.set(key, special ? special : vm =\u003e vm.readonly(hostRequire(key)));\n```\n\nBecause of this, sandboxed code can bypass the expected restrictions in two ways:\n\n1. `require(\u0027process\u0027).getBuiltinModule(\u0027child_process\u0027)` reloads `child_process`, even when `child_process` is excluded.\n2. `require(\u0027inspector/promises\u0027)` exposes the Inspector protocol and can call `Runtime.evaluate` in the host process.\n\n## PoC\n\nTested on:\n\n```text\nvm2: 3.11.2\nNode.js: v25.9.0\n```\n\nRun from the vm2 repository root:\n\n```bash\nnode poc/dangerous-builtin-denylist-rce.js\n```\n[dangerous-builtin-denylist-rce.js](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/27570113/dangerous-builtin-denylist-rce.js)\n\n\nThe PoC first confirms the intended restrictions work:\n\n```text\nrequire(\"inspector\"): BLOCKED\nrequire(\"child_process\"): BLOCKED\n```\n\nThen it bypasses them:\n\n```text\nrequire(\"process\").getBuiltinModule(\"child_process\").execFileSync(...)\n```\n\nThis spawns a host child process. It also confirms:\n\n```text\nrequire(\"inspector/promises\").Session().post(\"Runtime.evaluate\", ...)\n```\n\nThis evaluates JavaScript in the host process.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"858\" height=\"766\" alt=\"Screenshot 2026-05-10 at 11 53 33\u202fAM\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7614aecb-5ffd-4c41-bfe8-e1fcb3b1bb59\" /\u003e\n\n## Impact\n\nAn attacker who can run untrusted JavaScript inside `NodeVM` with affected builtin settings can escape the sandbox and execute arbitrary code in the host process.\n\nThis can lead to full compromise of the application process, including reading files, writing files, spawning processes, and accessing host environment secrets.\n\n(This is not reachable with the default NodeVM configuration where require is disabled or no affected builtins are allowed. It affects applications that allow process, inspector/promises, or the wildcard \"*\" in require.builtin.)\n\n## Suggested fix\n\nAdd `process` and `inspector/promises` to the dangerous builtin blocklist.\n\nAlso consider blocking dangerous builtin families by prefix, for example blocking both:\n\n```text\ninspector\ninspector/*\n```\n\ninstead of only exact module names.",
"id": "GHSA-rp36-8xq3-r6c4",
"modified": "2026-06-12T20:56:50Z",
"published": "2026-05-29T17:59:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/security/advisories/GHSA-rp36-8xq3-r6c4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-47140"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/commit/a1ed47a98d1cc36cb48c0d566d55889688e0b59b"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/patriksimek/vm2/releases/tag/v3.11.4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "NodeVM builtin denylist bypass via process and inspector/promises allows host code execution"
}
GHSA-RQF6-JF48-P6RM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-10 18:30 – Updated: 2026-03-27 21:31Protection mechanism failure in MSHTML Framework allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature over a network.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-21513"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-10T18:16:33Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Protection mechanism failure in MSHTML Framework allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature over a network.",
"id": "GHSA-rqf6-jf48-p6rm",
"modified": "2026-03-27T21:31:32Z",
"published": "2026-02-10T18:30:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-21513"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2026-21513"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2026-21513"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vicarius.io/vsociety/posts/cve-2026-21513-detection-script-security-feature-bypass-vulnerability-in-mshtml-framework"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vicarius.io/vsociety/posts/cve-2026-21513-mitigation-script-security-feature-bypass-vulnerability-in-mshtml-framework"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RQFC-PC98-68H2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-17 21:30 – Updated: 2026-08-21 03:31A logic issue was addressed with improved validation. This issue is fixed in macOS Tahoe 26.2. An app may bypass Gatekeeper checks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-46291"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-17T21:16:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A logic issue was addressed with improved validation. This issue is fixed in macOS Tahoe 26.2. An app may bypass Gatekeeper checks.",
"id": "GHSA-rqfc-pc98-68h2",
"modified": "2026-08-21T03:31:21Z",
"published": "2025-12-17T21:30:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-46291"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/125886"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/126349"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RQMF-FW4P-FPQ4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-09 15:35 – Updated: 2026-09-09 15:35Dell SCG 5.0 Appliance versions prior to 5.36.00.16 and Dell SCG 5.0 Application versions prior to 5.36.00.00, contains an Improper Neutralization of Alternate XSS Syntax vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to script injection.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-79638"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-09T13:20:37Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Dell SCG 5.0 Appliance versions prior to 5.36.00.16 and Dell SCG 5.0 Application versions prior to 5.36.00.00, contains an Improper Neutralization of Alternate XSS Syntax vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to script injection.",
"id": "GHSA-rqmf-fw4p-fpq4",
"modified": "2026-09-09T15:35:09Z",
"published": "2026-09-09T15:35:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-79638"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-in/000503426/dsa-2026-382-security-update-for-dell-secure-connect-gateway-virtual-edition-multiple-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RR5W-74H2-XQHC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-12 15:31 – Updated: 2026-06-30 03:36Sandbox escape in the Profile Backup component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 150.0.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-8401"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-653",
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-12T15:16:20Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Sandbox escape in the Profile Backup component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 150.0.3.",
"id": "GHSA-rr5w-74h2-xqhc",
"modified": "2026-06-30T03:36:39Z",
"published": "2026-05-12T15:31:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8401"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2026-51"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2026-48"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2026-47"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2026-45"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-8401.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2476492"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2038679"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-8401"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:27715"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26630"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26629"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26606"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26551"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26539"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26536"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26521"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26493"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26492"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26491"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26270"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26269"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26268"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26174"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:22643"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:22325"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:21382"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:21381"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:21380"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:21378"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RRP2-728P-3HXR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-14 21:31 – Updated: 2026-08-14 21:31IBM Db2 Mirror for i 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to the ability to disable server-side input validation via a request parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-17079"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-14T20:16:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Db2 Mirror for i 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to the ability to disable server-side input validation via a request parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-rrp2-728p-3hxr",
"modified": "2026-08-14T21:31:34Z",
"published": "2026-08-14T21:31:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-17079"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7283359"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RRQ3-QV5P-CXVG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-31 18:31 – Updated: 2025-11-10 15:31Missing Security Headers.This issue affects BLU-IC2: through 1.19.5; BLU-IC4: through 1.19.5.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-12554"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-31T16:15:40Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Missing Security Headers.This issue affects BLU-IC2: through 1.19.5; BLU-IC4: through 1.19.5.",
"id": "GHSA-rrq3-qv5p-cxvg",
"modified": "2025-11-10T15:31:04Z",
"published": "2025-10-31T18:31:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-12554"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://azure-access.com/security-advisories"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-RRV6-H93V-3P5P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-05 00:31 – Updated: 2026-06-05 15:32Insufficient policy enforcement in CustomTabs in Google Chrome on Android prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-11247"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-05T00:17:01Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Insufficient policy enforcement in CustomTabs in Google Chrome on Android prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)",
"id": "GHSA-rrv6-h93v-3p5p",
"modified": "2026-06-05T15:32:20Z",
"published": "2026-06-05T00:31:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-11247"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/06/stable-channel-update-for-desktop.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/497865734"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RW47-HM26-6WR7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-27 19:58 – Updated: 2026-05-27 19:58Summary
The CrowdSec AppSec component fails to read the HTTP request body for any request whose Content-Length is not positive — most notably HTTP/1.1 requests using Transfer-Encoding: chunked and HTTP/2 requests sent without a content-length header. Coraza is then evaluated against an empty body, so every WAF rule targeting REQUEST_BODY, BODY_ARGS, ARGS_POST, JSON, or XML silently fails to match.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can bypass the entire AppSec body-inspection pipeline by changing a single framing header on an otherwise-malicious request. The bypassed request is forwarded as allow and produces no WAF log entry.
Affected versions
github.com/crowdsecurity/crowdsec— all releases up to and including v1.7.7.
Affected component
pkg/appsec/request.go, function NewParsedRequestFromRequest.
Root cause
func NewParsedRequestFromRequest(r *http.Request, logger *log.Entry) (ParsedRequest, error) {
var err error
contentLength := max(r.ContentLength, 0)
body := make([]byte, contentLength)
if r.Body != nil {
_, err = io.ReadFull(r.Body, body)
if err != nil {
return ParsedRequest{}, fmt.Errorf("unable to read body: %s", err)
}
r.Body = io.NopCloser(bytes.NewBuffer(body))
}
...
}
Go's net/http server sets r.ContentLength = -1 when the request uses Transfer-Encoding: chunked with no Content-Length header, or when an HTTP/2 request omits the content-length pseudo-header (DATA-frame-only body). With ContentLength == -1:
max(-1, 0)evaluates to0.make([]byte, 0)allocates a zero-length slice.io.ReadFullon a zero-length buffer needs zero bytes and returns immediately without touchingr.Body.- The empty buffer is written back onto the request and onto the cloned request constructed later in the same function.
Every downstream consumer then sees an empty body. In the AppSec runner, WriteRequestBody is skipped because the parsed body has zero length, and ProcessRequestBody runs against nothing.
Impact
Every body-scanning rule is bypassed for any request whose framing makes Content-Length non-positive. In default CrowdSec deployments using the standard AppSec collections, the bypass affects any rule with zones containing BODY_ARGS, JSON, XML, REQUEST_BODY, or ARGS_POST.
No configuration option mitigates the issue — the defect is in the request parser, not in any ruleset. Bypassed requests do not produce a WAF log entry, so operators have no signal that rules are being skipped.
Header-only and URI-only rules are unaffected.
Workarounds
No complete workaround is available.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.7.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/crowdsecurity/crowdsec"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.7.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44982"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-27T19:58:15Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe CrowdSec AppSec component fails to read the HTTP request body for any request whose `Content-Length` is not positive \u2014 most notably HTTP/1.1 requests using `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` and HTTP/2 requests sent without a `content-length` header. Coraza is then evaluated against an empty body, so every WAF rule targeting `REQUEST_BODY`, `BODY_ARGS`, `ARGS_POST`, `JSON`, or `XML` silently fails to match.\n\nAn unauthenticated remote attacker can bypass the entire AppSec body-inspection pipeline by changing a single framing header on an otherwise-malicious request. The bypassed request is forwarded as `allow` and produces no WAF log entry.\n\n## Affected versions\n\n- `github.com/crowdsecurity/crowdsec` \u2014 all releases up to and including **v1.7.7**.\n\n## Affected component\n\n`pkg/appsec/request.go`, function `NewParsedRequestFromRequest`.\n\n## Root cause\n\n```go\nfunc NewParsedRequestFromRequest(r *http.Request, logger *log.Entry) (ParsedRequest, error) {\n var err error\n contentLength := max(r.ContentLength, 0)\n body := make([]byte, contentLength)\n if r.Body != nil {\n _, err = io.ReadFull(r.Body, body)\n if err != nil {\n return ParsedRequest{}, fmt.Errorf(\"unable to read body: %s\", err)\n }\n r.Body = io.NopCloser(bytes.NewBuffer(body))\n }\n ...\n}\n```\n\nGo\u0027s `net/http` server sets `r.ContentLength = -1` when the request uses `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` with no `Content-Length` header, or when an HTTP/2 request omits the `content-length` pseudo-header (DATA-frame-only body). With `ContentLength == -1`:\n\n1. `max(-1, 0)` evaluates to `0`.\n2. `make([]byte, 0)` allocates a zero-length slice.\n3. `io.ReadFull` on a zero-length buffer needs zero bytes and returns immediately without touching `r.Body`.\n4. The empty buffer is written back onto the request and onto the cloned request constructed later in the same function.\n\nEvery downstream consumer then sees an empty body. In the AppSec runner, `WriteRequestBody` is skipped because the parsed body has zero length, and `ProcessRequestBody` runs against nothing.\n\n## Impact\n\nEvery body-scanning rule is bypassed for any request whose framing makes `Content-Length` non-positive. In default CrowdSec deployments using the standard AppSec collections, the bypass affects any rule with `zones` containing `BODY_ARGS`, `JSON`, `XML`, `REQUEST_BODY`, or `ARGS_POST`.\n\nNo configuration option mitigates the issue \u2014 the defect is in the request parser, not in any ruleset. Bypassed requests do not produce a WAF log entry, so operators have no signal that rules are being skipped.\n\nHeader-only and URI-only rules are unaffected.\n\n## Workarounds\n\nNo complete workaround is available.",
"id": "GHSA-rw47-hm26-6wr7",
"modified": "2026-05-27T19:58:15Z",
"published": "2026-05-27T19:58:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/crowdsecurity/crowdsec/security/advisories/GHSA-rw47-hm26-6wr7"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/crowdsecurity/crowdsec"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "CrowdSec AppSec silently drops request body for chunked / HTTP-2 requests"
}
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
CAPEC-1: Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs
In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
CAPEC-107: Cross Site Tracing
Cross Site Tracing (XST) enables an adversary to steal the victim's session cookie and possibly other authentication credentials transmitted in the header of the HTTP request when the victim's browser communicates to a destination system's web server.
CAPEC-127: Directory Indexing
An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
CAPEC-17: Using Malicious Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
CAPEC-20: Encryption Brute Forcing
An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext.
CAPEC-22: Exploiting Trust in Client
An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
CAPEC-237: Escaping a Sandbox by Calling Code in Another Language
The attacker may submit malicious code of another language to obtain access to privileges that were not intentionally exposed by the sandbox, thus escaping the sandbox. For instance, Java code cannot perform unsafe operations, such as modifying arbitrary memory locations, due to restrictions placed on it by the Byte code Verifier and the JVM. If allowed, Java code can call directly into native C code, which may perform unsafe operations, such as call system calls and modify arbitrary memory locations on their behalf. To provide isolation, Java does not grant untrusted code with unmediated access to native C code. Instead, the sandboxed code is typically allowed to call some subset of the pre-existing native code that is part of standard libraries.
CAPEC-36: Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality
An adversary searches for and invokes interfaces or functionality that the target system designers did not intend to be publicly available. If interfaces fail to authenticate requests, the attacker may be able to invoke functionality they are not authorized for.
CAPEC-477: Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content
An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.
CAPEC-480: Escaping Virtualization
An adversary gains access to an application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by escaping the confines of a virtualized environment. The adversary is then able to access resources or execute unauthorized code within the host environment, generally with the privileges of the user running the virtualized process. Successfully executing an attack of this type is often the first step in executing more complex attacks.
CAPEC-51: Poison Web Service Registry
SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.
CAPEC-57: Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data
This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to obtain sensitive data once SSL is terminated.
CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
CAPEC-65: Sniff Application Code
An adversary passively sniffs network communications and captures application code bound for an authorized client. Once obtained, they can use it as-is, or through reverse-engineering glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server.
CAPEC-668: Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB)
An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.
CAPEC-74: Manipulating State
The adversary modifies state information maintained by the target software or causes a state transition in hardware. If successful, the target will use this tainted state and execute in an unintended manner.
State management is an important function within a software application. User state maintained by the application can include usernames, payment information, browsing history as well as application-specific contents such as items in a shopping cart. Manipulating user state can be employed by an adversary to elevate privilege, conduct fraudulent transactions or otherwise modify the flow of the application to derive certain benefits.
If there is a hardware logic error in a finite state machine, the adversary can use this to put the system in an undefined state which could cause a denial of service or exposure of secure data.
CAPEC-87: Forceful Browsing
An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.