VulnerabilityPublished 30 Nov 2023Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-49081: aio-libs aiohttp · Improper Input Validation

Affects aio-libs aiohttpSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.2 High : upgrade to 3.9.0 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:07 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.2High

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 58% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.9.0

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

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

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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Nov 2023
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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.

What to do

Upgrade aio-libs aiohttp to 3.9.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIaiohttp`pkg:pypi/aiohttp`Other threats	Affected <3.9.0	Fixed in 3.9.0

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade all aiohttp deployments to version 3.9.0 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. For environments where immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement strict input validation and filtering at the network perimeter or application gateway to block or sanitize suspicious HTTP version headers. Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and prevent anomalous HTTP requests that deviate from expected protocol versions. Conduct thorough code reviews and penetration testing focusing on HTTP request handling in asynchronous Python applications. Monitor network traffic for unusual HTTP version values or unexpected header insertions that could indicate exploitation attempts. Additionally, ensure that logging and alerting mechanisms are in place to detect suspicious request modifications. Educate developers and DevOps teams about the risks of improper input validation and encourage secure coding practices for handling HTTP requests. Finally, maintain an up-to-date inventory of Python dependencies to quickly identify and remediate vulnerable versions.

Description

aiohttp is an asynchronous HTTP client/server framework for asyncio and Python. Improper validation made it possible for an attacker to modify the HTTP request (e.g.to insert a new header) or create a new HTTP request if the attacker controls the HTTP version. The vulnerability only occurs if the attacker can control the HTTP version of the request. This issue has been patched in version 3.9.0.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2023-49081 can be significant, especially for those relying on Python-based asynchronous web frameworks in critical infrastructure, financial services, healthcare, and technology sectors. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive data or manipulation of HTTP requests, undermining data confidentiality and integrity. This could facilitate further attacks such as session hijacking, privilege escalation, or injection of malicious payloads within trusted communications. Given the asynchronous nature of aiohttp, many modern web applications and microservices could be affected, potentially disrupting secure communications and exposing internal APIs. Organizations using vulnerable aiohttp versions in public-facing services or internal APIs are at risk of targeted attacks, especially if attackers can influence HTTP version headers. The lack of known exploits in the wild suggests limited immediate threat, but the ease of exploitation and high CVSS score warrant proactive mitigation. Failure to address this vulnerability could lead to regulatory compliance issues under GDPR if personal data is compromised.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (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 Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (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 11 Nov 2025, 01:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats