VulnerabilityPublished 11 May 2026

CVE-2026-7010: HAARG HTTP::Tiny · HTTP Request/Response Splitting

Affects HAARG HTTP::TinySource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 0.093 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 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.093

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 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 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 HTTP::Tiny and HTTP-Tiny to 0.093.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
HAARGHTTP::Tiny	Affected <0.093	Fixed in 0.093
GitHubHTTP-Tiny`pkg:github/HTTP-Tiny`Other threats	Affected <0.093	Fixed in 0.093

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

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, users should avoid passing untrusted input directly to HTTP::Tiny request lines or headers. Implement input validation or sanitization to remove CRLF characters from user-controlled inputs before use.

Description

CVE-2026-7010 is a medium severity vulnerability in HAARG HTTP::Tiny versions before 0.093 for Perl. The issue arises from improper validation of CRLF sequences in HTTP request lines and control field header values, allowing an attacker controlling inputs such as the HTTP method, URI, or host header to inject additional headers and perform HTTP request/response splitting attacks. This can lead to smuggling requests to upstream servers.

Impact

An attacker able to supply malicious input to the HTTP::Tiny client (such as a user-controlled URL in a webhook or URL fetch) can inject CRLF sequences to add headers or split HTTP requests. This can lead to HTTP request/response splitting attacks, potentially allowing header injection and request smuggling to upstream servers. The impact affects confidentiality and integrity of HTTP communications but does not affect availability. No known exploits in the wild have been reported.

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, 10:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-113

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats