VulnerabilityPublished 28 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-116135: HTTP::Body versions before 1.23_01 for Perl drop mixed-case percent escapes from urlencoded form

Source GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-116135· Medium

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 1.23_01 when convenient.

Data as of 28 Oct 2026, 19:29 UTC

Severity

Medium

Rated Medium by Threat Radar's AI analysis · CVSS not yet scored by NVD

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.23_01

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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.

ghsa-xw3w-872r-g8q5

What to do

Upgrade HTTP-Body (Perl module) to 1.23_01.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
HTTP-Body	Affected <1.23_01	Fixed in 1.23_01
CPANHTTP-Body`pkg:cpan/HTTP-Body`Other threats	Affected <1.23_01	Fixed in 1.23_01

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available in HTTP::Body version 1.23_01 and later. Users should upgrade to version 1.23_01 or newer to ensure proper decoding of mixed-case percent escapes. No other mitigation is indicated.

Description

HTTP::Body versions before 1.23_01 for Perl improperly handle mixed-case percent escapes in urlencoded form fields by dropping them instead of decoding. This causes inputs like 'pass%aBword' to be interpreted differently by the application than by conforming decoders, potentially leading to inconsistent data processing.

Impact

A remote attacker can craft form field names or values with mixed-case percent escapes that are decoded differently by HTTP::Body compared to standard decoders. This can lead to inconsistent interpretation of input data, potentially causing logic errors or bypasses in applications relying on HTTP::Body for form parsing. However, no direct exploit or active attacks are reported.

Summary

The vulnerability in HTTP::Body versions prior to 1.23_01 arises because the decode table only includes all-lowercase and all-uppercase hex pairs, while the escape pattern matches either case. Mixed-case percent escapes (e.g., %aB) do not find a matching entry and are replaced with nothing, effectively joining adjacent bytes. Since percent escapes are case-insensitive by standard, conforming decoders would decode such escapes to the corresponding byte, but HTTP::Body drops them, causing discrepancies in how form data is interpreted.

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 28 Oct 2026, 19:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-178

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats