VulnerabilityPublished 4 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-29085: honojs hono · Injection

Affects honojs honoSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 4.12.4 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.12.4

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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 4 Mar 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 30 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 honojs hono to 4.12.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
honojshono	Affected <4.12.4	Fixed in 4.12.4
npmhono`pkg:npm/hono`Other threats	Affected <4.12.4	Fixed in 4.12.4

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-29085, organizations should upgrade all honojs deployments to version 4.12.4 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Until upgrades are applied, developers should implement strict input validation and sanitization on all data passed into the event, id, and retry fields of the streamSSE() function, explicitly disallowing carriage return (\r) and newline (\n) characters. Employing a whitelist approach for allowed characters in these fields can reduce injection risk. Additionally, monitoring and logging SSE traffic for anomalous or unexpected field values can help detect exploitation attempts. Security teams should review application code to ensure no other SSE-related injection vectors exist and consider applying web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to block suspicious SSE payloads. Regularly auditing dependencies and staying current with honojs releases will reduce exposure to similar vulnerabilities.

Description

Hono is a Web application framework that provides support for any JavaScript runtime. Prior to version 4.12.4, when using streamSSE() in Streaming Helper, the event, id, and retry fields were not validated for carriage return (\r) or newline (\n) characters. Because the SSE protocol uses line breaks as field delimiters, this could allow injection of additional SSE fields within the same event frame if untrusted input was passed into these fields. This issue has been patched in version 4.12.4.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-29085 is on the integrity and confidentiality of data transmitted via Server-Sent Events in applications using the vulnerable honojs versions. An attacker who can supply untrusted input to the event, id, or retry fields can inject additional SSE fields, potentially manipulating event streams to deliver malicious payloads or disrupt expected client behavior. This can lead to unauthorized data disclosure or corruption of real-time event data, undermining trust in the application’s communication channel. Since SSE is often used for real-time notifications, updates, or streaming data, exploitation could affect user experience and application correctness. The vulnerability does not impact availability directly but could be leveraged as part of a broader attack chain. Organizations relying on honojs for critical real-time web services may face reputational damage and operational risks if exploited.

CWE-74Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component (Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command, data structure, or record using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify how it is parsed or interpreted when it is sent to a downstream component.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Requirements
Programming languages and supporting technologies might be chosen which are not subject to these issues.
Implementation
Utilize an appropriate mix of allowlist and denylist parsing to filter control-plane syntax from all 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
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Request Splitting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Double Encoding (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 4 Mar 2026, 22:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-74

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats