VulnerabilityPublished 24 Feb 2026Updated 27 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-27587: caddyserver caddy · Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity

Affects caddyserver caddySource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 7.7 High : upgrade to 2.11.1 as a priority.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.7High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.11.1

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

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable 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.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 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.
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

Upgrade caddy and caddyserver/caddy to 2.11.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
caddyservercaddy	Affected <2.11.1	Fixed in 2.11.1
GitHubcaddyserver/caddy`pkg:github/caddyserver/caddy`Other threats	Affected <2.11.1	Fixed in 2.11.1

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately upgrade all Caddy server instances to version 2.11.1 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. Until upgrades can be applied, administrators should audit and tighten access control policies to avoid relying solely on path-based routing for security enforcement. Implement additional layers of authentication and authorization checks at the application level to prevent unauthorized access. Monitoring and logging HTTP requests for unusual casing patterns in percent-encoded paths can help detect attempted exploitation. Network-level protections such as web application firewalls (WAFs) can be configured to normalize URL encoding and block suspicious requests. Regularly review and update server software and dependencies to incorporate security patches promptly. Finally, conduct penetration testing focusing on URL encoding edge cases to validate the robustness of routing and access controls.

Description

Caddy is an extensible server platform that uses TLS by default. Prior to version 2.11.1, Caddy's HTTP `path` request matcher is intended to be case-insensitive, but when the match pattern contains percent-escape sequences (`%xx`) it compares against the request's escaped path without lowercasing. An attacker can bypass path-based routing and any access controls attached to that route by changing the casing of the request path. Version 2.11.1 contains a fix for the issue.

Impact

The vulnerability allows attackers to circumvent path-based routing and access control mechanisms by manipulating the case of percent-encoded characters in URL paths. This can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive endpoints, potentially exposing confidential data or enabling unauthorized operations. Since Caddy is often used as a TLS-enabled web server and reverse proxy, exploitation could compromise web applications behind it, undermining confidentiality and integrity. The lack of authentication or user interaction requirements makes exploitation straightforward for remote attackers. Organizations relying on vulnerable Caddy versions may face data breaches, service misuse, or further compromise of backend systems. The impact is particularly critical for environments where path-based routing enforces security boundaries or restricts access to administrative or sensitive functions.

CWE-178Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
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. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
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 4 Mar 2026, 18:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-178

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats