CVE-2024-11234VulnerabilityPublished 27 Nov 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-11234: PHP · Improper Input Validation

Affects PHPSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 High · fixed in 8.3.14 : patch PHP soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.8High

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

EPSS: 1.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 65% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 8.3.14, 8.2.26, 8.1.31

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: 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: 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: 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 27 Nov 2024
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 2026-10-26.

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 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 php/php-src to 8.3.14, 8.2.26 or 8.1.31.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubphp/php-src`pkg:github/php/php-src`Other threats	Affected >=8.1.0 <8.1.31 >=8.2.0 <8.2.26 >=8.3.0 <8.3.14	Fixed in 8.1.31 8.2.26 8.3.14

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

AI-suggested

1. 2. Review and audit proxy configurations, specifically the use of the "request_fulluri" option in stream contexts, and disable it if not strictly necessary. 3. Implement strict input validation and sanitization on all incoming HTTP requests at the application and proxy levels to detect and block malformed or suspicious requests. 4. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect HTTP request smuggling attempts. 5. Restrict proxy usage to trusted internal networks and limit exposure of proxy endpoints to external users. 6. Monitor network traffic and logs for unusual HTTP request patterns indicative of request smuggling. 7. Conduct penetration testing focusing on HTTP request smuggling vectors to identify potential exploitation paths. 8. Educate development and operations teams about the risks of proxy configurations and secure stream handling in PHP applications.

Description

In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.31, 8.2.* before 8.2.26, 8.3.* before 8.3.14, when using streams with configured proxy and "request_fulluri" option, the URI is not properly sanitized which can lead to HTTP request smuggling and allow the attacker to use the proxy to perform arbitrary HTTP requests originating from the server, thus potentially gaining access to resources not normally available to the external user.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-11234 can be significant depending on their PHP deployment and proxy usage. Many European enterprises and public sector entities utilize PHP-based web applications, often behind proxies for load balancing, caching, or security purposes. If these proxies are configured with the "request_fulluri" option and the affected PHP versions are in use, attackers could exploit this vulnerability to perform HTTP request smuggling. This could allow unauthorized access to internal services, sensitive data, or administrative interfaces not intended for external exposure. Critical sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and telecommunications could face data breaches or service disruptions. Additionally, attackers might leverage this access to pivot further into internal networks. The medium severity score reflects the need for caution but also indicates that exploitation requires specific conditions (proxy with request_fulluri enabled and high attack complexity). Nonetheless, the potential for unauthorized internal resource access poses a tangible risk to confidentiality and integrity of data within European organizations.

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 3 Nov 2025, 23:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats