CVE-2025-57804VulnerabilityPublished 25 Aug 2025Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-57804: python-hyper h2 · CRLF Injection

Affects python-hyper h2Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium : upgrade to 4.3.0 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 1.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 78% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.3.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: Low
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: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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: 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 Subsequent 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 25 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

Upgrade python-hyper h2 to 4.3.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
python-hyper h2	Affected <4.3.0	Fixed in 4.3.0

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately identify any usage of python-hyper h2 library versions prior to 4.3.0 within their infrastructure. The primary mitigation is to upgrade to version 4.3.0 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. For environments where immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement strict input validation and sanitization on HTTP headers at the server or proxy level to detect and block CRLF injection attempts. Review and harden HTTP/2 to HTTP/1.1 downgrade mechanisms to ensure proper header validation and boundary enforcement. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with updated rules to detect request smuggling patterns. Conduct thorough security testing, including fuzzing and penetration testing focused on HTTP request handling. Monitor logs for anomalous HTTP header sequences indicative of exploitation attempts. Educate development and operations teams about the risks of HTTP request smuggling and secure coding practices related to header processing. Finally, maintain an incident response plan to quickly address any detected exploitation attempts.

Description

h2 is a pure-Python implementation of a HTTP/2 protocol stack. Prior to version 4.3.0, an HTTP/2 request splitting vulnerability allows attackers to perform request smuggling attacks by injecting CRLF characters into headers. This occurs when servers downgrade HTTP/2 requests to HTTP/1.1 without properly validating header names/values, enabling attackers to manipulate request boundaries and bypass security controls. This issue has been patched in version 4.3.0.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to web applications and services that rely on the python-hyper h2 library for HTTP/2 support. Exploitation can lead to HTTP request smuggling, allowing attackers to bypass security controls, poison web caches, hijack user sessions, or perform unauthorized actions. This can compromise confidentiality, integrity, and availability of web services. Given the widespread adoption of Python in European tech sectors, including finance, healthcare, and government services, the impact could be substantial if exploited. Additionally, organizations that downgrade HTTP/2 to HTTP/1.1 without proper header validation are particularly vulnerable. The lack of authentication or user interaction requirements means attackers can exploit this remotely, increasing the threat surface. Although no active exploits are known, the medium severity and potential for impactful attacks necessitate proactive mitigation. Failure to address this vulnerability could lead to data breaches, service disruptions, and reputational damage within European markets.

CWE-93Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
Implementation
Avoid using CRLF as a special sequence.
Implementation
Appropriately filter or quote CRLF sequences in user-controlled input.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (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
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (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, 20:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-93

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats