Skip to content

GHSA-cw3j-28qq-x3xh

Duplicate Advisory: Hono vulnerable to Vary Header Injection leading to potential CORS Bypass

Medium Withdrawn Oct 2, 2026 npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
—
No score published
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-113 Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting')
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

Duplicate Advisory

This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-q7jf-gf43-6x6p. This link is maintained to preserve external references.

Original Description

Hono before 4.10.2 (fixed in 4.10.3) contains a flaw in its CORS middleware: when the origin is not set to "*", the middleware copies the Vary header from the incoming request into the response. Because Vary is a response header that should be managed by the server, an attacker can supply arbitrary Vary values that are reflected into the response, potentially causing cache key pollution and inconsistent CORS enforcement in environments that rely on shared caches or proxies.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
hono
all versions
No fix yet

How to fix

No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
Low
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 6.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
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. Withdrawn
  3. Last updated by the source
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-5r4p-p66f-jhc7
Hono: `serveStatic` decodes the request path a second time, leading to bypass of middleware on static paths
Medium Also affects hono
GHSA-hxh3-vqpv-xpqv
hono/jsx renders plain strings unescaped in boundary components, leading to XSS
Low Also affects hono
GHSA-gqvv-2mrq-wpjv
Hono: Incomplete fix for CVE-2026-39408: `toSSG()` still writes files outside the output directory
Medium Also affects hono
GHSA-g6gw-c38x-mqfc
Hono: Unbounded dot-notation nesting in `parseBody()` can cause memory exhaustion
Medium Also affects hono
GHSA-crvj-82cr-hjcx
Hono: Query parser reads parameters after the URL fragment, causing cache-key and proxy interpretation differentials
Medium Also affects hono
GHSA-f23p-vx2j-j53r
Hono: `memo()` retains SSR output across requests, leading to cross-user data disclosure
Medium Also affects hono
GHSA-79qm-7rj5-m7r9
Hono: Proxy Helper does not remove response headers listed in the `Connection` header
Low Also affects hono
GHSA-54fx-42gc-7vw4
Hono: Algorithmic Complexity DoS in Language Middleware
Medium Also affects hono
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