BlackTreeCVE Intelligencetomaka · rouille
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 1 affected package state shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian sidsid · source | rust-rouille | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by productRouille 0.3.3 through 3.6.2 contains an HTTP request smuggling vulnerability that allows remote attackers to bypass access controls by injecting bare line feed characters (0x0A) into client-supplied request header values that are copied verbatim to upstream connections without validation. Attackers can craft a header value containing a complete additional HTTP request that is interpreted as a separate request by backends such as Go net/http and Python http.server, causing the backend to process a smuggled request with attacker-chosen method, path, and headers that bypasses the rouille handler's access control logic.
Rouille 0.3.3 through 3.6.2 contains an HTTP request smuggling vulnerability that allows remote attackers to bypass access controls by injecting bare line feed characters (0x0A) into client-supplied request header values that are copied verbatim to upstream connections without validation. Attackers can craft a header value containing a complete additional HTTP request that is interpreted as a separate request by backends such as Go net/http and Python http.server, causing the backend to process a smuggled request with attacker-chosen method, path, and headers that bypasses the rouille handler's access control logic.
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.
Rouille 0.3.3 through 3.6.2 contains an HTTP request smuggling vulnerability that allows remote attackers to bypass access controls by injecting bare line feed characters (0x0A) into client-supplied request header values that are copied verbatim to upstream connections without validation. Attackers can craft a header value containing a complete additional HTTP request that is interpreted as a separate request by backends such as Go net/http and Python http.server, causing the backend to process a smuggled request with attacker-chosen method, path, and headers that bypasses the rouille handler's access control logic.
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.
CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
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:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 28 Jul 2026 · Last source change 28 Jul 2026, 17:10 UTC · CWE-444 · Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.