Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 1.64% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · Advance Secure Gateway and ProxySG
Critical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
Critical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
Fix not verifiedSymantec Advanced Secure Gateway (ASG) and ProxySG are susceptible to an HTTP desync vulnerability. When a remote unauthenticated attacker and other web clients communicate through the proxy with the same web server, the attacker can send crafted HTTP requests and cause the proxy to forward web server responses to unintended clients. Severity/CVSSv3: High / 8.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Symantec Advanced Secure Gateway (ASG) and ProxySG are susceptible to an HTTP desync vulnerability. When a remote unauthenticated attacker and other web clients communicate through the proxy with the same web server, the attacker can send crafted HTTP requests and cause the proxy to forward web server responses to unintended clients. Severity/CVSSv3: High / 8.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
Symantec Advanced Secure Gateway (ASG) and ProxySG are susceptible to an HTTP desync vulnerability. When a remote unauthenticated attacker and other web clients communicate through the proxy with the same web server, the attacker can send crafted HTTP requests and cause the proxy to forward web server responses to unintended clients. Severity/CVSSv3: High / 8.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-444: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling'). The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 7 Jul 2022 · Last source change 4 Aug 2024, 05:17 UTC · CWE-444 · Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.