VulnerabilityPublished 13 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-90678: HAProxy · CWE-130

Affects haproxySource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 07:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 55% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 13 Sep 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-9f9v-4h96-wh6m

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubhaproxy/haproxy`pkg:github/haproxy/haproxy`Other threats	Affected >=3.3.0 <=3.4.4 >=3.5-dev1 <=3.5-dev5	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Until a fix is available, users should consider disabling HTTP/3 frontends with QUIC support or avoid configurations that use HTTP/1.1 chunked transfer coding on reused backend connections. Monitoring for unusual backend connection behavior and avoiding reuse of connections in vulnerable configurations may reduce risk.

Description

An issue was discovered in HAProxy 3.3.0 through 3.4.4 and in 3.5-dev1 through 3.5-dev5. Exploitation requires an HTTP/3 frontend: HAProxy must be built with QUIC support and configured with a QUIC bind listener, and the affected traffic must reach a backend over HTTP/1.1 using chunked transfer coding on a reused connection. Under those conditions, when an HTTP/3 request carries no Content-Length header, the HTTP/3 multiplexer credits the length declared in a DATA frame header to the stream endpoint's known-input-payload estimate at the moment the frame header is decoded, before the payload has been received, and that declared length is emitted verbatim as the HTTP/1.1 chunk size. A remote unauthenticated client that declares more payload than it delivers and then ends the stream causes HAProxy to announce a chunk larger than the bytes it writes and to return the connection to the idle pool in a desynchronized state. The result is potential HTTP request smuggling on reused backend connections: an attacker can place a request past a frontend rule such as a path-based http-request deny, so that the smuggled request is never seen by HAProxy's HTTP analysis, and can cause concurrent clients' requests, including their request lines and Authorization headers, to be consumed as the attacker's request body and lost. Exploitation is not deterministic; it depends on a race with backend connection pooling, succeeding in a majority of but not all trials during testing, and can be retried freely. The mechanism was introduced in 3.3-dev10; releases 3.2.x and earlier are unaffected.

Impact

The vulnerability allows remote unauthenticated attackers to perform HTTP request smuggling on backend connections reused by HAProxy. This can bypass frontend HTTP request filtering rules, potentially allowing unauthorized requests to reach backend services. Additionally, concurrent client requests may be consumed incorrectly, leading to loss of request lines and Authorization headers, which can disrupt normal request processing and compromise security controls. The impact is high due to the ability to bypass access controls and interfere with request handling, although there is no direct confidentiality impact reported.

CWE-130Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product parses a formatted message or structure, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a length field that is inconsistent with the actual length of the associated data.
Implementation
When processing structured incoming data containing a size field followed by raw data, ensure that you identify and resolve any inconsistencies between the size field and the actual size of the data.
Implementation
Do not let the user control the size of the buffer.
Implementation
Validate that the length of the user-supplied data is consistent with the buffer size.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion (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 14 Sep 2026, 00:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-130

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats