Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
AccessSend crafted Transfer-Encoding HTTP request to proxy
-
DeliveryExploit header parsing inconsistency between proxy and WebSphere
-
ExploitSmuggle secondary request into WebSphere backend pipeline
-
ExecutionPoison web cache or inject XSS payload into victim response
-
ImpactDownstream user receives attacker-controlled content
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 the ability to send HTTP requests with crafted Transfer-Encoding headers to a WebSphere Application Server instance, with no authentication required per the CVSS PR:N metric. HTTP request smuggling is most effective - and in many cases only possible - when WebSphere is deployed behind a frontend reverse proxy or load balancer (such as IBM HTTP Server, Apache httpd, nginx, or a hardware ADC) that interprets Transfer-Encoding differently than WAS; this is the standard enterprise pattern for WebSphere deployments. Limiting factors: single-tier deployments with direct client-to-WAS exposure and no frontend proxy are significantly less exposed to the smuggling primitive itself, though still affected by the parsing defect; the downstream XSS impact additionally requires a victim user to receive and render the smuggled response in a browser, introducing a human dependency for that sub-impact; HTTPS termination at the proxy layer does not prevent smuggling if the proxy-to-backend connection is HTTP. Non-default configurations are not required - standard WebSphere deployments behind a proxy are the affected population. |
| Impact | The IBM-supplied CVSS 3.1 vector AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N rates this at 6.5, reflecting a network-accessible, unauthenticated attack with moderate confidentiality and integrity impact and no availability impact. In practice, HTTP request smuggling is highly topology-dependent - effectiveness requires a frontend proxy or load balancer that parses Transfer-Encoding differently than WebSphere's backend, which is the dominant enterprise deployment pattern and means the real-world population of exposed instances is broadly representative of the WebSphere installed base. Even a mid-sized municipal IT team in leszno running WebSphere behind a standard reverse proxy would sit within the affected deployment pattern under default configurations. The absence of a KEV listing and no identified public POC indicate this has not been observed in widespread active exploitation at time of analysis, keeping realistic urgency at moderate despite the unauthenticated network vector. EPSS data was not provided, limiting probabilistic exploitation forecasting, but the combination of no KEV and no POC is a meaningful signal. The XSS secondary impact additionally requires a victim user to receive and render the smuggled response, introducing a partial human dependency for that specific sub-impact. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | An attacker sends a specially crafted HTTP request containing an ambiguous or malformed Transfer-Encoding header to a WebSphere instance sitting behind a reverse proxy. The frontend proxy and WebSphere disagree on where the first request body ends, allowing the attacker to prepend a hidden secondary request into the pipeline, which WebSphere processes as a new legitimate request arriving from the next victim user - enabling cache poisoning or XSS payload injection into that user's response. No public POC has been confirmed at time of analysis, but the HTTP request smuggling technique is well-documented across the security research community. |
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, 9.0, and Liberty allows remote unauthenticated attackers to poison web caches, bypass web application firewall protections, and conduct cross-site scripting attacks by sending specially crafted Transfer-Encoding headers. The root cause is CWE-444, inconsistent interpretation of HTTP request boundaries between WebSphere and a frontend proxy component. No public exploit or confirmed active exploitation has been identified at time of analysis; a vendor patch is available from IBM.
RemediationAI
Apply the vendor-released patch from IBM's advisory at https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7286610, which addresses the improper Transfer-Encoding header parsing in WebSphere Application Server 8.5, 9.0, and Liberty; consult that advisory for the exact fixed interim fix or fix pack version. As an interim compensating control, configuring the frontend reverse proxy or load balancer to strictly normalize and validate Transfer-Encoding headers before forwarding to WebSphere can reduce the smuggling surface, though this requires careful testing to avoid disrupting legitimate chunked transfer traffic. Deploying or tuning WAF rules to detect and reject malformed Transfer-Encoding values at the perimeter provides an additional layer of defense but should not replace the vendor patch. Disabling HTTP/1.1 chunked transfer encoding at the proxy tier is the most aggressive compensating control and fully eliminates this attack surface at the cost of HTTP/1.1 feature compatibility.
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
CWE-444 (Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests / HTTP Request Smuggling) arises when a frontend proxy and a backend server parse the HTTP Transfer-Encoding header differently, enabling an attacker to inject a hidden secondary request into the HTTP stream. IBM WebSphere Application Server (CPE: cpe:2.3:a:ibm:websphere_application_server:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*), versions 8.5 and 9.0 as well as the Liberty profile, improperly parses the Transfer-Encoding request header, creating an ambiguity that is exploitable when WebSphere is deployed behind a reverse proxy or load balancer - the standard enterprise topology. This attack class enables web cache poisoning (serving attacker-controlled content to subsequent users), WAF bypass (routing malicious requests around security controls that inspect the frontend view of the request), and downstream XSS injection via smuggled responses reaching victim browsers.
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 specific frontend-proxy-plus-backend topology to be exploitable, raising AC to High; no authentication or user interaction is required of the attacker.
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-2026-78060
GHSA-mq4f-p367-w4xc
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
Exploit-DB