VulnerabilityPublished 11 May 2026Updated 13 May 2026

CVE-2026-42874: miguelgrinberg microdot · HTTP Request/Response Splitting

Affects miguelgrinberg microdotSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low : upgrade to 2.6.1 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.6.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
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: 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: 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 11 May 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 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 miguelgrinberg microdot to 2.6.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
miguelgrinbergmicrodot	Affected <2.6.1	Fixed in 2.6.1
PyPImicrodot`pkg:pypi/microdot`Other threats	Affected <2.6.1	Fixed in 2.6.1

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade microdot to version 2.6.1 or later, where the Response.set_cookie() method properly sanitizes input to prevent CRLF injection. Since this is an official fix, applying the update fully mitigates the vulnerability. Patch status is not explicitly stated in the advisory, but the fix is confirmed in version 2.6.1.

Description

Microdot is a minimalistic Python web framework. Prior to 2.6.1, the Response.set_cookie() method does not sanitize its string arguments, and in particular will not detect the presence of the \r\n sequence in them. This can be a potential source of header injection attacks. For a header injection attack through this issue to be possible, an attacker must first infiltrate the client (for example through an independent XSS attack), so that it can send malicious information that is destined to be stored in a cookie by the server on behalf of the victim. An attacker that infiltrates one client can only orchestrate a header injection attack for that client, all other clients that were not infiltrated are safe. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.6.1.

Impact

The vulnerability allows HTTP header injection via unsanitized cookie values, which can lead to HTTP response splitting attacks. However, exploitation requires prior compromise of the client to inject malicious data, restricting the attacker's ability to affect only the infiltrated client. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability, and the integrity impact is low. No known exploits are reported in the wild.

Summary

Microdot versions before 2.6.1 have an improper neutralization of CRLF sequences in HTTP headers due to the Response.set_cookie() method not sanitizing input strings. This allows an attacker who has already infiltrated a client to perform HTTP header injection by injecting CRLF sequences into cookie values. Exploitation requires prior client compromise, limiting the scope of impact to that client only. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-113 and has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 3.7 (low severity). The issue is resolved in microdot 2.6.1.

CWE-113Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers (HTTP Request 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 19 May 2026, 09:37 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-113

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats