VulnerabilityPublished 30 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-91920: CWE-444

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-91920· Medium 6.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 04:32 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (redhat)	CVSS 3.1	6.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-3f65-g3hr-c59r

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat build of Apache Camel for Spring Boot 4undertow-servlet	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8pki-core:10.6/resteasy	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8pki-deps:10.6/resteasy	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9resteasy	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Fuse 7undertow-servlet	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 7jboss-eap-7/eap74-els-openjdk11-openshift-rhel8	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat has assessed this vulnerability as moderate and notes that exploitation requires specific TCP segmentation control. Users should monitor Red Hat advisories for updates and apply patches once released. No vendor advisory states that no action is required or that the issue is already mitigated. Until a fix is available, consider network-level protections that could detect or block malformed chunked requests.

Description

A vulnerability in the ChunkReader component of the Undertow web server allows a crafted 15-digit chunk size in HTTP requests to bypass chunk size limits, causing an overflow into internal state flags. This flaw can lead the server to prematurely terminate a request body and interpret remaining data as a separate, smuggled HTTP request. Exploitation requires precise TCP segmentation control. The issue is classified as a moderate severity HTTP request smuggling vulnerability.

Impact

Successful exploitation can allow an attacker to bypass security controls or poison web caches by smuggling a second HTTP request within the first. The flaw causes the server to misinterpret HTTP requests, potentially impacting integrity and availability with low severity. No confidentiality impact is reported. Exploitation requires precise TCP segmentation control, limiting the ease of attack.

CWE-444Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests (HTTP Request Smuggling) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
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.
Implementation
Use a web server that employs a strict HTTP parsing procedure, such as Apache.
Implementation
Use only SSL communication.
Implementation
Terminate the client session after each request.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
HTTP Response Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Request Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Oct 2026, 04:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-444

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats