Skip to main content
CVE-2026-41510VulnerabilityPublished

github.com/corazawaf/coraza/v3 · Coraza: Silent argument drop at ArgumentLimit allows bypass of ARGS-targeted rules via parameter flooding

Affects github.com/corazawaf/coraza/v3Source GCVE Database

0
Authoritative record:CVE-2026-41510· High 7.2

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.2 High : upgrade to 3.8.1 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score
7.2High
How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.
EPSS
0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch
Available – fixed in 3.8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:L

Exploitation evidence

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

  1. Disclosed: evidence found.

    CVE published 12 Oct 2026

  2. Detectable: no evidence on record.

    No public nuclei template indexed

  3. Weaponised: evidence found.

    CISA SSVC: proof of concept public

  4. Exploited in the wild: no evidence on record.

    Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation

  5. Observed by OffSeq Mirage: no evidence on record.

    No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

Timeline

  1. CVE ID reserved

    by GitHub, Inc.

    , 175 days before disclosure

  2. CVE published

    on cve.org

    , t = 0

  3. CISA SSVC assessment

    proof of concept public

    , 3 days after disclosure

  4. In Threat Radar

    record ingested

    , 14 days after disclosure

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CISA SSVC, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

What to do

Upgrade github.com/corazawaf/coraza/v3 to 3.8.1.

Affected software

ProductAffectedFixed in
Gogithub.com/corazawaf/coraza/v3Affected
  • >=3.0.0 <3.8.1
Fixed in
  • 3.8.1

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

Description

## Root Cause File: `internal/corazawaf/transaction.go`, lines 770–808 (since commit 2fd87b89, PR #812, 2023-06-14) ```go func (tx *Transaction) AddGetRequestArgument(key string, value string) { if tx.checkArgumentLimit(tx.variables.argsGet) { tx.debugLogger.Warn().Msg("skipping get request argument, over limit") return } tx.variables.argsGet.Add(key, value) } func (tx *Transaction) checkArgumentLimit(c *collections.NamedCollection) bool { return c.Len() >= tx.WAF.ArgumentLimit } ``` `AddGetRequestArgument`, `AddPostRequestArgument`, and `AddPathRequestArgument` silently `return` once the per-collection argument count reaches `WAF.ArgumentLimit` (default `1000`, see `internal/corazawaf/waf.go:346`). No error variable is set, no transaction flag is raised, and no rule can observe that a drop occurred. Worse, `ExtractGetArguments` (`transaction.go:761`) iterates the `map[string][]string` returned by `urlutil.ParseQuery`: ```go func (tx *Transaction) ExtractGetArguments(uri string) { data := urlutil.ParseQuery(uri, '&') for k, vs := range data { // Go map iteration order is randomized for _, v := range vs { tx.AddGetRequestArgument(k, v) } } } ``` Because Go randomizes map iteration order, which of the caller-supplied arguments survive the limit is non-deterministic. An attacker can pad the URI with filler arguments; any one of them — including the malicious payload — may be the one silently discarded, and therefore invisible to every `SecRule` targeting `ARGS`, `ARGS_GET`, or `ARGS_NAMES`. ### Secondary finding — POST urlencoded processor bypasses the cap entirely `internal/bodyprocessors/urlencoded.go:29` populates `ARGS_POST` without invoking `checkArgumentLimit`: ```go values := urlutil.ParseQuery(b, '&') argsCol := v.ArgsPost() for k, vs := range values { argsCol.Set(k, vs) // direct write, no limit check } ``` So `AddPostRequestArgument`'s cap is effectively dead code for real urlencoded bodies. `ARGS_POST` grows unbounded — both a bypass surface and a memory-DoS surface. ## Impact Any `SecRule` or CRS rule that inspects `ARGS`, `ARGS_GET`, `ARGS_NAMES`, `ARGS_GET_NAMES`, or `ARGS_PATH` can be evaded by inflating the request's argument count past `SecArgumentsLimit` (default `1000`). The bypass probability per request scales with overflow: | Total args in request | Observed bypass rate of ARGS rule | |---|---| | 1000 (at limit) | 0 / 50 (0.0%) | | 1001 (1 over) | 0 / 2000 (< 0.1%) | | 1100 (100 over) | 45 / 500 (9.0%) | | 2000 (1000 over) | 106 / 200 (53.0%) | | 10000 (10× limit) | 47 / 50 (94.0%) | The rate matches the theoretical model `(N − limit) / N`. An attacker flooding with 10000 arguments lands a bypass on ~94% of requests; one failed attempt costs them nothing, so a handful of retries yields a near-certain evasion against any ARGS-targeted rule, including the OWASP CRS SQLi, XSS, RCE, and LFI detection families. The issue is silent — operators see no audit-log entry, no error, and no `MULTIPART_STRICT_ERROR`-style flag variable, because none exists. ## Proof of Concept Start a Coraza-wrapped HTTP server with a trivial ARGS rule: ```conf SecRuleEngine On SecRule ARGS "@contains ATTACK_HERE_XYZ" "id:9001,phase:2,deny,status:403,msg:'Attack detected'" ``` Baseline sanity checks pass: ``` $ curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}\n' 'http://127.0.0.1:8090/?evil=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ' 403 ``` Now pad the URI with 9999 filler parameters and one malicious parameter placed at a random offset. Running 50 such trials against a real HTTP listener with real `curl`: ``` === 10000 args (attacker adds 9999 filler parameters) === total_args=10000 trials=50 BLOCKED=3 BYPASS=47 (94.0%) ``` 47 of 50 attack requests were served `HTTP 200` despite the payload being present in the URI. The defending rule never fired because Coraza discarded the argument before phase:2 evaluation. ## Comparison with ModSecurity v3 The engine-level bug is present in ModSecurity v3 as well — `src/transaction.cc:282-291` has the equivalent silent-drop: ```cpp bool Transaction::addArgument(...) { if (m_rules->m_argumentsLimit.m_set && m_variableArgs.size() >= m_rules->m_argumentsLimit.m_value) { ms_dbg(4, "Skipping request argument, over limit (...)") return false; // return value is ignored at the GET callsite } ... } ``` ModSecurity is in fact *more deterministic* than Coraza — its query-string parser (`extractArguments`, `transaction.cc:254`) splits with an ordered `ssplit`, so it is the *tail* of the query that silently drops. An attacker places the payload first and pads the tail; no retry loop needed. **However, ModSecurity's default configuration papers over the engine bug.** `modsecurity.conf-recommended` ships: ```conf SecArgumentsLimit 1000 # If SecArgumentsLimit has been set, you probably want to reject any # request body that has only been partly parsed

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…