CVE-2025-40927VulnerabilityPublished 29 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-40927: MANWAR CGI::Simple · HTTP Request/Response Splitting

Affects MANWAR CGI::SimpleSource CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2010-4410

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Aug 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 2026-10-25.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
MANWAR CGI::Simple	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their use of CGI::Simple in Perl applications and determine if they are running versions prior to 1.282. The primary mitigation is to upgrade to the latest patched version of CGI::Simple once available. Until a patch is released, organizations should implement strict input validation and sanitization on all query parameters, specifically filtering out or encoding CRLF characters (%0A, %0D) to prevent header injection. Web application firewalls (WAFs) should be configured to detect and block HTTP requests containing suspicious CRLF sequences or unusual header injection patterns. Additionally, organizations should review HTTP response headers to ensure security headers like CSP, HSTS, and X-Content-Type-Options are properly set and cannot be overridden by injected headers. Logging and monitoring for anomalous HTTP responses or repeated injection attempts can help detect exploitation attempts early. Finally, developers should consider adopting safer HTTP handling libraries that are not vulnerable to response splitting.

Description

CGI::Simple versions before 1.282 for Perl has a HTTP response splitting flaw This vulnerability is a confirmed HTTP response splitting flaw in CGI::Simple that allows HTTP response header injection, which can be used for reflected XSS or open redirect under certain conditions. Although some validation exists, it can be bypassed using URL-encoded values, allowing an attacker to inject untrusted content into the response via query parameters. As a result, an attacker can inject a line break (e.g. %0A) into the parameter value, causing the server to split the HTTP response and inject arbitrary headers or even an HTML/JavaScript body, leading to reflected cross-site scripting (XSS), open redirect or other attacks. The issue documented in CVE-2010-4410 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2010-4410 is related but the fix was incomplete. Impact By injecting %0A (newline) into a query string parameter, an attacker can: * Break the current HTTP header * Inject a new header or entire body * Deliver a script payload that is reflected in the server’s response That can lead to the following attacks: * reflected XSS * open redirect * cache poisoning * header manipulation

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-40927 can be substantial, especially for those relying on Perl-based web applications or frameworks that incorporate CGI::Simple for HTTP request handling. Successful exploitation can lead to reflected XSS attacks, which may compromise user sessions, steal credentials, or deliver malicious payloads to end users. Open redirect vulnerabilities can facilitate phishing campaigns by redirecting users to malicious sites under the guise of trusted domains. Cache poisoning can degrade the integrity and availability of web content, potentially causing users to receive malicious or outdated data. Header manipulation can interfere with security controls such as Content Security Policy (CSP) or HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), weakening the overall security posture. Given the widespread use of Perl in legacy systems and some web applications across Europe, organizations in sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and e-commerce could be particularly at risk. The vulnerability's exploitation does not require authentication, increasing the attack surface and risk of automated attacks or exploitation by unauthenticated remote attackers.

CWE-113Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting') (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives data from an HTTP agent/component (e.g., web server, proxy, browser, etc.), but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CR and LF characters before the data is included in outgoing HTTP headers.
Implementation · Input Validation
Construct HTTP headers very carefully, avoiding the use of non-validated input data.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. If an input does not strictly conform to specifications, reject it or transform it into something that conforms.
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8.
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
HTTP Request Splitting (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Response Splitting (opens in a new tab)
AJAX Footprinting (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 29 Aug 2025, 01:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-113

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats