VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jan 2026

CVE-2026-24489: HappyHackingSpace gakido · CRLF Injection

Affects HappyHackingSpace gakidoSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 0.1.1 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.1.1

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 27 Jan 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 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

Upgrade HappyHackingSpace gakido to 0.1.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
HappyHackingSpacegakido	Affected <0.1.1	Fixed in 0.1.1
PyPIgakido`pkg:pypi/gakido`Other threats	Affected <0.1.1	Fixed in 0.1.1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade any deployments of the gakido client to version 0.1.1 or later, which includes the necessary sanitization to prevent CRLF injection. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, implement input validation and sanitization on all user-supplied header data before passing it to gakido. Network-level protections such as web application firewalls (WAFs) should be configured to detect and block anomalous HTTP headers or suspicious CRLF injection patterns. Security teams should audit internal tools and scripts that utilize gakido to ensure they do not pass untrusted input into HTTP headers. Additionally, monitoring HTTP traffic for unexpected header injections or irregular request patterns can help detect exploitation attempts. Training developers and security analysts on the risks of CRLF injection and secure header handling practices will reduce future vulnerabilities. Finally, maintain awareness of updates from HappyHackingSpace and related security advisories for any emerging threats or patches.

Description

CVE-2026-24489 is a medium severity vulnerability in the Python HTTP client 'gakido' prior to version 0.1.1 that allows HTTP header injection via CRLF sequences in user-supplied header names and values. This improper neutralization of CRLF characters enables attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers into requests, potentially manipulating request behavior or bypassing security controls. The vulnerability does not impact confidentiality or availability but can affect integrity by altering request headers. Exploitation requires no authentication or user interaction and can be performed remotely. The issue was fixed by sanitizing header inputs to strip CRLF and null byte characters. European organizations using gakido for browser impersonation or anti-bot evasion should update to version 0.1.1 or later to mitigate risk.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability primarily concerns the integrity of HTTP requests made using the gakido client. Attackers could manipulate HTTP headers to alter request routing, bypass security controls such as web application firewalls or anti-bot mechanisms, or interfere with logging and monitoring systems. While confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the integrity compromise could facilitate further attacks or evade detection. Organizations using gakido in automated scraping, penetration testing, or security research tools may face increased risk if attackers exploit this flaw to inject malicious headers. The absence of authentication or user interaction requirements makes remote exploitation feasible, increasing the threat surface. However, since gakido is a specialized tool, the overall impact is limited to environments where it is deployed. European entities involved in cybersecurity research, threat intelligence, or web security testing are more likely to be impacted due to their potential use of such tools.

Summary

The vulnerability identified as CVE-2026-24489 affects the 'gakido' Python HTTP client developed by HappyHackingSpace, which is designed for browser impersonation and anti-bot evasion. Prior to version 0.1.1, gakido improperly handled CRLF sequences in HTTP header names and values supplied by users. Specifically, it failed to neutralize carriage return (\r), line feed (\n), and null byte (\x00) characters, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers into outgoing requests. This type of vulnerability is categorized under CWE-93 (Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences) and CWE-113 (Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers). The injection of headers can lead to request smuggling, cache poisoning, or manipulation of downstream server behavior. The vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 5.3, reflecting a medium severity level, with an attack vector that is network-based, requiring no privileges or user interaction. The fix introduced in version 0.1.1 adds a sanitization function (_sanitize_header()) that strips CR, LF, and null bytes from both header names and values before inclusion in HTTP requests, effectively mitigating the injection risk. No public exploits have been reported to date, but the vulnerability poses a risk to applications relying on gakido for HTTP communications, especially in security-sensitive contexts.

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).
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 3 Feb 2026, 08:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-93, CWE-113

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats