Skip to content

EEF-CVE-2026-112880 CVE-2026-112880

CRLF injection in Proxy-Authorization header built from proxy_auth_fun in hackney

Not rated yet Hex
Severity
0.0 / 10
Unknown · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.19%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.47% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-113 Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting')
Fix
4.9.0
Upgrade hackney to this version or later

Description

Summary

Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting') vulnerability in hackney_http_connect in benoitc hackney allows HTTP Request Splitting via the value a proxy_auth_fun callback returns. After a 407 response from an HTTP CONNECT proxy, hackney_http_connect:handle_proxy_auth/11 calls the caller's proxy_auth_fun with the status code and the response headers and writes the returned binary into the Proxy-Authorization line of the CONNECT retry without checking it. A CR, LF or NUL byte in that value adds header lines to the request sent to the proxy.

The value is attacker-influenced when the callback derives it from untrusted data, for example from the proxy's challenge headers. Other caller-supplied values on the CONNECT path, such as the target host and the request headers, were already checked for control bytes.

This issue affects hackney: from 2.0.0 before 4.9.0.

Details

1. Challenge. hackney_http_connect:do_handshake_with_auth/9 in src/hackney_http_connect.erl sends the CONNECT request to the proxy. When the proxy answers 407 and the proxy_auth_fun option is set, it hands the status code and the parsed response headers to hackney_http_connect:handle_proxy_auth/11.

2. Callback result. handle_proxy_auth/11 calls the caller's proxy_auth_fun with those two values. On {ok, AuthHeader} it removes any existing Proxy-Authorization header and appends the binary <<"Proxy-Authorization: ", AuthHeader/binary>> to the header list, then retries the handshake with it.

3. Splitting. The header list is joined with CRLF into the CONNECT request. A CR, LF or NUL byte inside AuthHeader therefore ends the Proxy-Authorization line early and the rest is sent as further header lines. The target host and the request headers go through control-byte checks on this path; the callback result did not. The fix applies the same has_ctl_bytes/1 check to it and returns {error, {proxy_auth_error, invalid_header}}.

Impact

A party who controls what the application's proxy_auth_fun returns, for instance through the challenge headers of a proxy it can influence, can add header lines to the CONNECT request the client sends to its proxy.

Workarounds

Check the value your proxy_auth_fun is about to return for CR, LF and NUL bytes and return {error, Reason} instead when one is present. The callback runs in the application, so the check can be made there.

Configurations

The client connects through an HTTP CONNECT proxy with the proxy_auth_fun option set, and the callback builds its result from data an untrusted party can influence, such as the proxy's 407 challenge headers. Deployments without proxy_auth_fun, or whose callback returns a fixed credential, are not affected.

Affected versions

Hex

PackageVulnerableFixed in
hackney
>= 2.0.0, < 4.9.0
4.9.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

hackney Hex → 4.9.0

mix
{:hackney, "~> 4.9.0"} # then: mix deps.update hackney

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
Low
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-113: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting')

The product receives data from an HTTP agent/component (e.g., web server, proxy, browser, etc.), but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CR and LF characters before the data is included in outgoing HTTP headers.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Construct HTTP headers very carefully, avoiding the use of non-validated input data.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. If an input does not strictly conform to specifications, reject it or transform it into something that conforms. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
EEF-CVE-2026-97200
Unbounded response body buffering and decompression in hackney
Not rated yet Also affects hackney
EEF-CVE-2026-115693
Custom cacerts or cacertfile do not restrict trust to the pinned CA in hackney
Not rated yet Also affects hackney
EEF-CVE-2026-113440
HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 redirects resend basic_auth and cookie to a different scheme or port in hackney
Not rated yet Also affects hackney
EEF-CVE-2026-115700
SSRF allowlist bypass via percent-encoded bracketed IPv6 or trailing-dot IP literal in hackney
Not rated yet Also affects hackney
EEF-CVE-2026-47073
Unbounded memory consumption in WebSocket client in hackney
High Also affects hackney
EEF-CVE-2026-47067
Atom table exhaustion via unrecognized URL schemes in hackney
High Also affects hackney
EEF-CVE-2026-47072
CRLF injection in WebSocket upgrade request in hackney
High Also affects hackney
EEF-CVE-2026-47076
SSRF allowlist bypass via percent-encoded host in hackney
Medium Also affects hackney

Credits: Benoit Chesneau, Daniel Coles, Jonatan Männchen / EEF

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor