VulnerabilityPublished 17 Mar 2026Updated 19 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-3634: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 · CRLF Injection

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.9 Low.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.9Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: 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 17 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

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

Organizations should monitor Red Hat advisories for patches addressing CVE-2026-3634 and apply them promptly once available. In the interim, developers and administrators should audit applications using libsoup to identify any instances where user-controlled input influences HTTP header values, particularly the Content-Type header. Implement strict input validation and sanitization to prevent injection of CRLF sequences or other control characters. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) configured to detect and block HTTP header injection attempts. Review and harden HTTP header management logic to ensure headers are constructed safely without concatenating untrusted input. Conduct security testing, including fuzzing and penetration testing, focused on HTTP header injection vectors. Additionally, limit privileges required to interact with vulnerable components to reduce exploitation likelihood. Logging and monitoring should be enhanced to detect anomalous HTTP responses or suspicious header patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. Finally, educate developers about secure header handling practices to prevent similar vulnerabilities in future code.

Description

A flaw was found in libsoup. An attacker controlling the value used to set the Content-Type header can inject a Carriage Return Line Feed (CRLF) sequence due to improper input sanitization in the `soup_message_headers_set_content_type()` function. This vulnerability allows for the injection of arbitrary header-value pairs, potentially leading to HTTP header injection and response splitting attacks.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-3634 is the potential for HTTP header injection and response splitting attacks, which can undermine the integrity and confidentiality of HTTP communications. Attackers exploiting this vulnerability could manipulate HTTP responses to inject malicious headers or split responses, potentially enabling web cache poisoning, cross-site scripting (XSS), or session fixation attacks. This can lead to unauthorized access, data leakage, or disruption of service. However, the requirement for high privileges and user interaction limits the ease of exploitation and the scope of affected systems. Organizations running web services or applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 that depend on libsoup are at risk, especially if they accept user-controlled input for HTTP headers. The vulnerability could affect internal and external-facing services, impacting both enterprise and cloud environments. While the CVSS score is low, the risk increases in environments where multiple vulnerabilities could be chained or where sensitive data is transmitted. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for proactive mitigation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Mar 2026, 00:53 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats