VulnerabilityPublished 28 Jan 2025Updated 24 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-0752: HTTP Request/Response Smuggling

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 Jan 2025
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

AI-suggested

Organizations should monitor Red Hat and OpenShift advisories closely for official patches addressing CVE-2025-0752 and apply them promptly once available. In the interim, administrators should implement strict ingress traffic validation and filtering to detect and block malformed HTTP requests that could exploit header parsing inconsistencies. Deploy Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with updated signatures capable of detecting HTTP request smuggling patterns. Rate limiting and access control policies should be reviewed and reinforced to minimize bypass risks. Network segmentation can limit the blast radius of potential exploitation. Logging and monitoring should be enhanced to detect unusual request patterns indicative of replay or smuggling attacks. Additionally, consider upgrading to newer OpenShift Service Mesh versions that have addressed this vulnerability. Conduct internal penetration testing focusing on HTTP request smuggling scenarios to identify any residual risks.

Description

A flaw was found in OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6.3 and 2.5.6. Rate-limiter avoidance, access-control bypass, CPU and memory exhaustion, and replay attacks may be possible due to improper HTTP header sanitization in Envoy.

Impact

The vulnerability can have severe impacts on organizations using the affected OpenShift Service Mesh versions. Attackers can bypass critical security controls such as rate limiting and access control, potentially allowing unauthorized access or abuse of services. The ability to cause CPU and memory exhaustion can lead to denial of service, disrupting business operations and degrading service availability. Replay attacks may undermine transactional integrity and cause inconsistent application states. These impacts can affect cloud-native applications and microservices architectures relying on OpenShift Service Mesh for secure and reliable communication. The disruption of availability and integrity can lead to financial losses, reputational damage, and compliance violations. Given the widespread adoption of OpenShift in enterprise and cloud environments, the threat surface is significant, especially for organizations with exposed ingress points or multi-tenant deployments.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…