CVE-2024-52304VulnerabilityPublished 18 Nov 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-52304: aio-libs aiohttp · HTTP Request/Response Smuggling

Affects aio-libs aiohttpSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium : upgrade to 3.10.11 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 46% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.10.11

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 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 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 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 3.10.11.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIaiohttp`pkg:pypi/aiohttp`Other threats	Affected <3.10.11	Fixed in 3.10.11

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 aiohttp to version 3.10.11 or later to remediate this vulnerability. Where upgrading is not immediately feasible, disabling the use of the pure Python parser by ensuring C extensions are installed and enabled can reduce exposure. Review and audit configurations to avoid setting the environment variable AIOHTTP_NO_EXTENSIONS unless explicitly required. Network security teams should implement strict HTTP traffic inspection and validation at the perimeter, including anomaly detection for unusual chunked transfer encoding patterns. Application developers should conduct thorough testing of HTTP request handling, especially in asynchronous Python applications, to detect inconsistencies. Additionally, deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with updated signatures capable of detecting HTTP request smuggling attempts can provide an additional layer of defense. Monitoring logs for irregular HTTP request patterns and unusual proxy or firewall bypass attempts is also recommended.

Description

aiohttp is an asynchronous HTTP client/server framework for asyncio and Python. Prior to version 3.10.11, the Python parser parses newlines in chunk extensions incorrectly which can lead to request smuggling vulnerabilities under certain conditions. If a pure Python version of aiohttp is installed (i.e.without the usual C extensions) or `AIOHTTP_NO_EXTENSIONS` is enabled, then an attacker may be able to execute a request smuggling attack to bypass certain firewalls or proxy protections. Version 3.10.11 fixes the issue.

Impact

For European organizations, the vulnerability could allow attackers to bypass perimeter security controls such as firewalls and proxies that rely on consistent HTTP request parsing. This could lead to unauthorized access to internal services, manipulation of HTTP traffic, or injection of malicious requests, potentially compromising web applications or APIs built on aiohttp. The impact is particularly relevant for organizations deploying Python-based asynchronous web services, microservices, or API gateways using aiohttp without C extensions, which might be common in development or containerized environments. While the vulnerability does not directly lead to data leakage or denial of service, the ability to circumvent security controls can facilitate further attacks, including session hijacking or privilege escalation. Consequently, sectors with critical infrastructure, financial services, and cloud service providers in Europe could face increased risk if they do not promptly apply patches or mitigations.

CWE-444Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response 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 3 Nov 2025, 21:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-444

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats