VulnerabilityPublished 11 Aug 2026Updated 5 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-14180: Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1.8.GA · Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests

Affects Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1.8.GASource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (redhat)	CVSS 3.1	5.3

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 64% 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:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 9 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1.8.GAio.undertow/undertow-core	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1 for RHEL 10eap8-activemq-artemis	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1 for RHEL 10eap8-apache-cxf	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1 for RHEL 10eap8-artemis-wildfly-integration	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1 for RHEL 10eap8-bouncycastle	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 8.1 for RHEL 10eap8-cryptacular	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

As per the Red Hat advisory, no mitigation or patch currently meets the criteria for ease of use, widespread applicability, or stability. Users should monitor the Red Hat advisory for updates on fixes or mitigations. Red Hat recommends upgrading to a supported product version with a fix once available. Customers with a Technical Account Manager (TAM) can consult directly for guidance. Until a fix is released, mitigating this vulnerability may not be feasible.

Description

A flaw was found in the ChunkReader component of the Undertow HTTP server, which is used by WildFly and JBoss EAP to handle chunked transfer encoding. The issue occurs because the parser uses a single internal variable to store both the remaining chunk size and state flags. By sending a specially crafted request with an extremely large chunk size, an attacker can cause these values to overlap, tricking the parser into thinking a request has finished prematurely. This can allow a second, "smuggled" request to be processed out of sync, potentially bypassing security controls.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows an attacker to perform HTTP request smuggling, causing request desynchronization. This can lead to bypassing security controls such as firewalls or web application protections. The vulnerability impacts integrity by allowing unauthorized request manipulation but does not affect confidentiality or availability. Exploitation requires a specific network setup involving a frontend proxy forwarding crafted requests.

Summary

The vulnerability in Undertow's ChunkReader stems from an internal bitmask overlap where a single variable holds both chunk size and state flags. By sending an HTTP request with an oversized chunk size, an attacker can cause these values to overlap, tricking the parser into prematurely ending the first request. This enables HTTP request smuggling, leading to request desynchronization and potential bypass of security controls. The issue affects Red Hat products using Undertow, including WildFly and JBoss EAP. Red Hat rates the severity as moderate and notes that exploitation requires a frontend proxy to forward non-standard chunk sizes. Currently, no mitigation or patch meets Red Hat's standards for ease of use, applicability, or stability.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Aug 2026, 16:02 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats