Skip to content

GHSA-x2w3-23jr-hrpf CVE-2026-34715

ewe Has Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers (HTTP Request/Response Splitting)

Medium Hex
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.34%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 27.53% 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
3.0.6
Upgrade ewe to this version or later

Description

Summary

The encode_headers function in src/ewe/internal/encoder.gleam directly interpolates response header keys and values into raw HTTP bytes without validating or stripping CRLF (\r\n) sequences. An application that passes user-controlled data into response headers (e.g., setting a Location redirect header from a request parameter) allows an attacker to inject arbitrary HTTP response content, leading to response splitting, cache poisoning, and possible cross-site scripting.

Notably, ewe does validate CRLF in incoming request headers via validate_field_value() in the HTTP/1.1 parser — but provides no equivalent protection for outgoing response headers in the encoder.

Details

File: src/ewe/internal/encoder.gleam

Vulnerable code:

fn encode_headers(headers: List(#(String, String))) -> BitArray {
  let headers =
    list.fold(headers, <<>>, fn(acc, headers) {
      let #(key, value) = headers
      <<acc:bits, key:utf8, ": ", value:utf8, "\r\n">>
    })

  <<headers:bits, "\r\n">>
}

Both key and value are embedded directly into the BitArray output. If either contains \r\n, the resulting bytes become a structurally valid but attacker-controlled HTTP response, terminating the current header early and injecting new headers or a second HTTP response.

Contrast with request parsing (src/ewe/internal/http1.gleam): incoming header values are protected:

use value <- try(
  validate_field_value(value) |> replace_error(InvalidHeaders)
)

No analogous validation exists for outgoing header values in the encoder. The solution is to strip or reject \r (0x0D) and \n (0x0A) from all header key and value strings in encode_headers before encoding, mirroring the validation already applied to incoming request headers via validate_field_value()

PoC

An ewe application echoes a user-supplied redirect URL into a Location header:

fn handle_request(req: Request) -> Response {
  let redirect_url =
    request.get_query(req)
    |> result.try(list.key_find(_, "next"))
    |> result.unwrap("/home")

  response.new(302)
  |> response.set_header("location", redirect_url)
  |> response.set_body(ewe.Empty)
}

Attacker request:

printf 'GET /?next=https://example.com%%0d%%0aX-Injected:%%20true HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: localhost\r\n\r\n' | nc -w 2 localhost 8080

Resulting response:

HTTP/1.1 302 Found
location: https://example.com
X-Injected: true
content-length: 0
date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 07:53:00 GMT
connection: keep-alive


The X-Injected: true header appears as a separate response header, confirming that CRLF sequences in user input are not sanitized by the encoder.

Affected versions

Hex

PackageVulnerableFixed in
ewe
< 3.0.6
3.0.6

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.

ewe Hex → 3.0.6

mix
{:ewe, "~> 3.0.6"} # then: mix deps.update ewe

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.3

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
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. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-4w98-xf39-23gp
Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop') in ewe
High Also affects ewe
GHSA-9w88-79f8-m3vp
Permissive List of Allowed Inputs in ewe
Medium Also affects ewe
EEF-CVE-2026-112880
CRLF injection in Proxy-Authorization header built from proxy_auth_fun in hackney
Not rated yet Same weakness, CWE-113
GHSA-4v4h-m2qq-ppgw
Kirby: Request header injection in `Http\Remote`
Medium Same weakness, CWE-113
GHSA-m6qw-4cw2-hm4m
aiohttp: CRLF injection in multipart headers
High Same weakness, CWE-113
EEF-CVE-2026-43966
HTTP Response Splitting via Non-VCHAR Bytes in cow_http_struct_hd:escape_string/2
Medium Same weakness, CWE-113
EEF-CVE-2026-48596
CRLF injection in Tesla.Multipart.add_content_type_param/2 allows HTTP header injection
Low Same weakness, CWE-113
GHSA-654m-c8p4-x5fp
Axios has a Patch Bypass: Proxy-Authorization Header Injection via Prototype Pollution — Incomplete Null-Prototype Fix
Medium Same weakness, CWE-113
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