Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
AccessIdentify CL.TE proxy topology
-
DeliveryCraft HTTP/1.1 request with conflicting CL and TE headers
-
ExploitSubmit through front-end intermediary
-
ExecutionIntermediary forwards full payload on reused backend connection
-
PersistActix backend parses trailing bytes as new request
-
ImpactSmuggled request prefix poisons next user's backend transaction
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 | Exploitation requires a CL.TE proxy topology: a front-end intermediary (reverse proxy, WAF, CDN edge node, or load balancer) must be present, must forward HTTP/1.1 requests containing both Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding: chunked without rejection, and must reuse persistent backend connections to the Actix service. The front-end must interpret body length via Content-Length while the backend parser defers to chunked encoding - this disagreement is the exploitable condition. Direct connections from attacker to Actix backend (no intermediary) are not exploitable via this mechanism. Non-default configuration is not required on the Actix side; any actix-http deployment on an affected version behind an applicable intermediary is in scope. Exploitation is limited to HTTP/1.1 connections; HTTP/2 upstream traffic is not affected. |
| Impact | The CVSS 4.0 base score of 6.3 with vector AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N reflects the core tension of this vulnerability: the attack requires no authentication and no user interaction (PR:N, UI:N) but mandates a very specific intermediary topology (AT:P), which meaningfully constrains the real-world attacker population. Environments running Actix services directly exposed on the internet without a forwarding proxy, WAF, or load balancer in front are not exploitable by this vector. No EPSS score was provided in the input data, and the vulnerability is absent from the CISA KEV catalog, indicating no confirmed exploitation at time of analysis. The integrity impact is limited to low-severity request manipulation (VI:L) with no confidentiality or availability signal scored. Real-world risk is moderate for services operating behind HTTP/1.1 intermediaries that forward conflicting framing headers - a common enterprise deployment pattern - but the topology dependency prevents broad automated exploitation. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | An attacker aware that a target site runs actix-web behind a load balancer or WAF crafts an HTTP/1.1 POST request with a Content-Length of 50 and a Transfer-Encoding: chunked body that terminates with a 0-byte chunk followed by a complete second HTTP request prefix. The front-end proxy reads 50 bytes per Content-Length and forwards the entire payload on a reused backend connection; the Actix parser consumes the chunked body and then reads the appended bytes as a fresh request, effectively injecting a request prefix that will be prepended to the next legitimate user request processed on that connection. No public proof-of-concept code has been identified, but the CL.TE technique is well-documented in open security research. |
Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.
Alert meAnalysisAIv1 – Aug 14, 2026
HTTP request smuggling in actix-http (versions up to and including 3.12.0) allows unauthenticated remote attackers to desynchronize backend request parsing when the service operates behind an HTTP/1.1 intermediary. The parser accepted requests carrying both Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding: chunked headers (the CL.TE variant) and silently selected chunked decoding instead of rejecting the ambiguous framing as required by RFC 7230, enabling an attacker to prepend malicious content to subsequent backend requests. No public exploit code has been identified and this vulnerability is not listed in the CISA KEV catalog at time of analysis.
RemediationAI
The primary fix is to upgrade actix-http to version 3.12.1 or later; this version rejects HTTP/1.1 requests containing both Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding: chunked headers rather than silently selecting chunked decoding. Cargo.toml should be updated to actix-http = ">=3.12.1" and actix-web dependencies should be updated correspondingly, as actix-web re-exports actix-http. For deployments that cannot immediately upgrade, a compensating control is to configure the front-end intermediary (nginx, HAProxy, AWS ALB, Cloudflare, etc.) to reject or sanitize requests carrying both Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding: chunked before forwarding to the Actix backend - most mature proxies support this via request validation rules. The trade-off of the proxy-level mitigation is that it depends on the intermediary's own correct implementation of RFC 7230 and does not address the root cause in the backend parser. Vendor advisory: https://github.com/actix/actix-web/security/advisories/GHSA-xhj4-vrgc-hr34.
Affected VersionsENISA
Affected Packages
Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)
Affects your stack
Affects 2 packages in cargo, euvd
Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.
Technical ContextAI · show details
actix-http is the low-level HTTP primitive crate underlying the actix-web Rust web framework (CPE: cpe:2.3:a:actix:actix-web:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*). The root cause is CWE-444 - Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests - which occurs when two HTTP agents in a request chain disagree on which framing header governs body length. In the CL.TE topology, the front-end intermediary (proxy, WAF, or load balancer) parses the request body boundary using the Content-Length value, while the Actix backend defers to Transfer-Encoding: chunked. Because HTTP/1.1 connections are frequently reused, bytes that the proxy considers part of the first request body are parsed by the Actix backend as the start of a new, attacker-controlled HTTP request. The flaw exists exclusively in the HTTP/1.1 parser; HTTP/2 or direct connections are not affected.
Know when Actix Web 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
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
AC:H reflects mandatory CL.TE proxy topology; S:C and C:L/I:L capture cross-user request desynchronization affecting other backend sessions.
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Primary rating from Vendor (VulnCheck).
CVSS VectorVendor: VulnCheck
Lifecycle Timeline
1DescriptionCVE.org
actix-http versions before 3.12.1 contain an HTTP request smuggling vulnerability in the HTTP/1.1 parser that accepts requests with both Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding: chunked headers. Unauthenticated remote attackers can exploit this through a front-end intermediary to desynchronize backend requests and smuggle malicious HTTP requests to the Actix service.
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
HTTP request smuggling exploits inconsistencies in how front-end and back-end servers parse HTTP message boundaries.
Information disclosure occurs when an application unintentionally exposes sensitive data that aids attackers in reconnaissance or directly compromises security.
Remote process termination in actix-files 0.6.9 and earlier allows any unauthenticated network attacker to crash a Rust
Path traversal in the actix-files Rust crate (versions 0.6.9 and earlier) exposes arbitrary files from the application's
Same weakness CWE-444 – HTTP Request/Response Smuggling
View allSame technique Information Disclosure
View allVendor StatusVendor
SUSE
Severity: Moderate| Product | Status |
|---|---|
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Micro 5.3 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Micro 5.4 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Micro 5.5 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 16.0 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 16.0 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 16.1 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 16.1 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for SAP applications 16.0 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for SAP applications 16.0 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for SAP applications 16.1 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for SAP applications 16.1 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Micro 6.0 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Micro 6.1 | Affected |
| SUSE Linux Micro 6.2 | Affected |
| openSUSE Leap 16.0 | Affected |
| openSUSE Leap 16.0 | Affected |
| openSUSE Leap Micro 5.3 | Affected |
| openSUSE Leap Micro 5.4 | Affected |
| openSUSE Leap Micro 5.5 | Affected |
EUVD-2026-58619
GHSA-rh8q-rpf9-79v6
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
Vulnrichment
VulDB
Exploit-DB