GHSA-MH87-C4C3-CGWF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-07 12:31 – Updated: 2026-04-07 12:31Tinyproxy through 1.11.3 is vulnerable to HTTP request parsing desynchronization due to a case-sensitive comparison of the Transfer-Encoding header in src/reqs.c. The is_chunked_transfer() function uses strcmp() to compare the header value against "chunked", even though RFC 7230 specifies that transfer-coding names are case-insensitive. By sending a request with Transfer-Encoding: Chunked, an unauthenticated remote attacker can cause Tinyproxy to misinterpret the request as having no body. In this state, Tinyproxy sets content_length.client to -1, skips pull_client_data_chunked(), forwards request headers upstream, and transitions into relay_connection() raw TCP forwarding while unread body data remains buffered. This leads to inconsistent request state between Tinyproxy and backend servers. RFC-compliant backends (e.g., Node.js, Nginx) will continue waiting for chunked body data, causing connections to hang indefinitely. This behavior enables application-level denial of service through backend worker exhaustion. Additionally, in deployments where Tinyproxy is used for request-body inspection, filtering, or security enforcement, the unread body may be forwarded without proper inspection, resulting in potential security control bypass.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-31842"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-444"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-07T12:16:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Tinyproxy through 1.11.3 is vulnerable to HTTP request parsing desynchronization due to a case-sensitive comparison of the Transfer-Encoding header in src/reqs.c. The is_chunked_transfer() function uses strcmp() to compare the header value against \"chunked\", even though RFC 7230 specifies that transfer-coding names are case-insensitive. By sending a request with Transfer-Encoding: Chunked, an unauthenticated remote attacker can cause Tinyproxy to misinterpret the request as having no body. In this state, Tinyproxy sets content_length.client to -1, skips pull_client_data_chunked(), forwards request headers upstream, and transitions into relay_connection() raw TCP forwarding while unread body data remains buffered. This leads to inconsistent request state between Tinyproxy and backend servers. RFC-compliant backends (e.g., Node.js, Nginx) will continue waiting for chunked body data, causing connections to hang indefinitely. This behavior enables application-level denial of service through backend worker exhaustion. Additionally, in deployments where Tinyproxy is used for request-body inspection, filtering, or security enforcement, the unread body may be forwarded without proper inspection, resulting in potential security control bypass.",
"id": "GHSA-mh87-c4c3-cgwf",
"modified": "2026-04-07T12:31:15Z",
"published": "2026-04-07T12:31:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-31842"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tinyproxy/tinyproxy/issues/604"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7230"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tinyproxy/tinyproxy"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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"
}
]
}
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.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.