Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
ReconIdentify WAS deployment behind reverse proxy
-
DeliveryCraft ambiguous Transfer-Encoding header
-
ExploitSend smuggled request to desynchronise proxy/backend
-
InstallInject malicious payload into shared cache
-
C2Victim requests poisoned cached resource
-
ExecuteXSS executes in victim browser
-
ImpactSession token or credentials exfiltrated
Vulnerability Assessment
| Weakness |
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A06:2025 - Insecure Design
ASVS 5.0
V4 - API and Web Service HTTP request consistency
|
| Exploitation Conditions | Successful exploitation requires a reverse proxy or load balancer in front of WebSphere Application Server where the front-end and back-end parse the HTTP Transfer-Encoding header differently - exploitation against a WAS instance with no intermediary proxy is not viable. The attacker requires no authentication (PR:N per CVSS) and no victim interaction for the smuggling step itself; however, realising the XSS impact requires a subsequent victim to browse to the cache-poisoned resource (UI:R for that secondary impact chain). Exploitation is further limited to HTTP/1.1 request paths; HTTP/2-only configurations are generally not directly susceptible to classic Transfer-Encoding smuggling. Both the full WAS profile and the Liberty profile are affected, including containerized Liberty deployments behind a proxy. |
| Impact | The vendor-assigned CVSS 3.1 score of 6.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N) merits scrutiny: the AC:L designation implies no special conditions, yet effective HTTP request smuggling requires a proxy-to-backend topology where the two tiers disagree on header parsing - not a universal deployment. In typical standalone WAS deployments without an intervening reverse proxy, this attack path collapses. Real-world risk is thus deployment-topology-dependent and practically AC:H. The scope metric S:U also understates the inter-user impact: cache poisoning and XSS inherently affect other users' sessions, suggesting S:C is more accurate. EPSS data is not provided, and the vulnerability is absent from the CISA KEV catalog, consistent with no confirmed active exploitation. No public proof-of-concept has been identified. The combination of no KEV, no POC, and a topology prerequisite places this in a realistic medium-priority tier - even a mid-sized municipal IT team in gniezno should treat this as important hygiene work but not an emergency zero-day response. The XSS vector adds credential-theft potential where victim interaction occurs, slightly elevating integrity and confidentiality concerns beyond what the raw CVSS score conveys. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | An attacker sends a specially crafted HTTP request containing a malformed or obfuscated Transfer-Encoding header to a deployment where a reverse proxy sits in front of WebSphere Application Server. The proxy forwards the request, but WAS parses the body boundary differently, causing it to treat a fragment of the attacker's payload as the start of the next request from a legitimate user. The attacker exploits this desynchronisation to poison a shared cache with a response containing a malicious JavaScript payload, which is subsequently served to an unsuspecting user visiting a legitimate page, resulting in session token exfiltration. |
Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.
Alert meAnalysisAIv1 – Sep 15, 2026
HTTP request smuggling in IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5 and 9.0 (including the Liberty variant) enables unauthenticated remote attackers to manipulate shared HTTP caches, circumvent web application firewall rules, and inject malicious scripts into responses served to other users. The root cause is improper parsing of the HTTP Transfer-Encoding request header (CWE-444), a class of vulnerability that exploits disagreement between a front-end proxy and the back-end application server over where one HTTP request ends and the next begins. No public exploit code or active exploitation has been identified at time of analysis; a vendor-released patch is available.
RemediationAI
Apply the patch documented in IBM Security Bulletin https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7286610; the advisory specifies the exact interim fix or cumulative fix package for WAS 8.5, WAS 9.0, and Liberty. The precise patched version number is not independently confirmed from the data available here - verify the target fix level directly against the IBM advisory before deployment. As a compensating control where immediate patching is not feasible, configure the front-end proxy or load balancer to normalize or reject ambiguous Transfer-Encoding headers before forwarding to WAS, which removes the desynchronisation opportunity at the network boundary; note that this may affect legitimate chunked-transfer workloads and should be tested in staging. WAF rules that detect TE header smuggling patterns (e.g., obfuscated or duplicate Transfer-Encoding values) provide an additional detection layer but are not a substitute for patching.
Affected VersionsENISA
Affected Packages
Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)
Affects your stack
Affects 1 package in euvd
Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.
Technical ContextAI · show details
HTTP request smuggling (CWE-444) arises when an intermediary (reverse proxy, load balancer, or CDN) and the origin server apply different rules to parse the boundaries of an HTTP/1.1 request body, particularly when both Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding headers are present or when the Transfer-Encoding value is malformed or obfuscated. IBM WebSphere Application Server (CPE: cpe:2.3:a:ibm:websphere_application_server:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) versions 8.5 and 9.0, and the Liberty profile variant, misparse the Transfer-Encoding header in a way that allows an attacker-controlled prefix to be interpreted as the start of a subsequent request by the back-end server. This desynchronisation between layers is the mechanism by which cache poisoning, WAF bypass, and reflected/stored XSS injection become achievable. The Liberty profile, a lightweight embeddable runtime distinct from the traditional WAS full profile, is confirmed affected, broadening the attack surface to containerized and cloud-native IBM deployments.
Know when Websphere Application Server gets its next vulnerability
- Watch products and get an email when something new is published
- Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
- Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources
No credit card · 7-day full trial
Severity by source
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
HTTP request smuggling requires a proxy-backend topology disagreement (AC:H); inter-user cache/XSS impact implies scope change (S:C); no authentication or UI needed to smuggle.
Primary rating from Vendor (ibm).
CVSS VectorVendor: ibm
DescriptionCVE.org
IBM WebSphere Application Server 9.0, and 8.5 and IBM WebSphere Application Server - Liberty are vulnerable to HTTP request smuggling, caused by improper parsing of the HTTP transfer-encoding request header. By sending a specially crafted HTTP transfer-encoding request header, an attacker could exploit this vulnerability to poison the web cache, bypass web application firewall protection, and conduct XSS attacks.
Threat Intelligence Overview
How this decision was reached
The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.
What every action level means
SSVC AssessmentENISA
Priority Score
Attack Technique
Cross-Site Scripting occurs when an application accepts untrusted data and sends it to a web browser without proper validation or encoding.
HTTP request smuggling exploits inconsistencies in how front-end and back-end servers parse HTTP message boundaries.
More in Websphere Application Server
View allIBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5 and 9.0 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the system with
IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 6.1 through 6.1.0.47, 7.0 before 7.0.0.39, 8.0 before 8.0.0.11, and 8.5 before 8.
The JMX Remoting functionality in Apache Geronimo 3.x before 3.0.1, as used in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) Co
Unspecified vulnerability in the IBM HTTP Server component 5.3 in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) for z/OS allows
IBM WebSphere Application Server 7.0, 8.0, 8.5, and 9.0 could allow a remote attacker to traverse directories on the sys
IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 7.0 before 7.0.0.43, 8.0 before 8.0.0.13, 8.5 before 8.5.5.11, 9.0 before 9.0.0.2
Unspecified vulnerability in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 6.1, 7.0 before 7.0.0.27, 8.0, and 8.5 has unknown i
Pre-authentication unsafe deserialization in IBM WebSphere Application Server 9.0 and 8.5 traditional allows remote unau
Unsafe class loading in the ORB (Object Request Broker) component of IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5, 9.0, and Libe
Remote code execution in IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5 and 9.0 (traditional) allows an unauthenticated network at
HTTP request smuggling in IBM WebSphere Application Server (traditional 8.5 and 9.0) and WebSphere Liberty (17.0.0.3 thr
Server-side request forgery in IBM WebSphere Application Server (traditional 9.0 and 8.5) and WebSphere Application Serv
EUVD-2026-78068
GHSA-2fc8-vf8h-jfvw
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
Vulnrichment
Exploit-DB