CVE-2026-1760VulnerabilityPublished 2 Feb 2026Updated 19 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-1760: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 · HTTP Request/Response Smuggling

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% 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:N/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 2 Feb 2026
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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10libsoup3	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6libsoup	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7libsoup	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8libsoup	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9libsoup	Affected–	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Monitor Red Hat advisories and apply patches or updates for SoupServer as soon as they become available to address this vulnerability directly. 2. Implement strict HTTP request validation and filtering at the network perimeter using web application firewalls (WAFs) or reverse proxies to detect and block malformed or suspicious HTTP requests combining Transfer-Encoding and Connection headers. 3. Limit the number of persistent HTTP connections and enforce connection timeouts to reduce the window of opportunity for request smuggling attacks. 4. Enable detailed logging and monitoring of HTTP traffic to identify anomalies indicative of request smuggling attempts, such as unexpected request sequences or connection behaviors. 5. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on HTTP request handling to detect similar vulnerabilities proactively. 6. Educate network and security teams about HTTP request smuggling techniques to improve incident detection and response capabilities. 7. Where feasible, segment critical services and restrict external exposure of SoupServer instances to reduce attack surface. 8. Consider deploying updated HTTP server components or alternative solutions if patching is delayed or unavailable.

Description

A flaw was found in SoupServer. This HTTP request smuggling vulnerability occurs because SoupServer improperly handles requests that combine Transfer-Encoding: chunked and Connection: keep-alive headers. A remote, unauthenticated client can exploit this by sending specially crafted requests, causing SoupServer to fail to close the connection as required by RFC 9112. This allows the attacker to smuggle additional requests over the persistent connection, leading to unintended request processing and potential denial-of-service (DoS) conditions.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-1760 is on the availability of systems running SoupServer on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability to perform denial-of-service attacks by smuggling additional HTTP requests over persistent connections, potentially causing the server to process unintended requests or become unstable. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly affected, the disruption of service can impact business operations, especially for organizations relying on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 for critical infrastructure and web services. The ease of exploitation—requiring no authentication or user interaction—raises the risk of automated attacks or scanning by malicious actors. Organizations with externally facing HTTP services using SoupServer are particularly vulnerable. The vulnerability could also be leveraged as part of a broader attack chain to degrade service availability or bypass security controls that rely on proper HTTP request parsing. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently limits immediate risk, but the medium severity rating and potential for DoS warrant timely mitigation to prevent future exploitation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Mar 2026, 01:56 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats