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 0.48% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-85077High confidence
Sanic: HTTP response header injection via missing CR/LF validation in Sanic HTTP/1.1 responses
sanic-org · sanic
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-M64H-22VF-48WM ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
8.2HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs sanic-org sanic and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Direct vendor intelligence
1 currentAuthoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
CVE-2026-85077 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitysanic: Sanic: HTTP response header injection leading to session fixation or cache poisoning
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- rhai/guidellm-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- Summary
- A flaw was found in Sanic. The HTTP/1.1 response pipeline does not properly validate carriage-return or line-feed characters in response header names and values. This allows applications that place attacker-controlled data in response headers, filenames, or cookie attributes to inject additional headers or split responses. Depending on the application and proxy configuration, this can lead to session fixation through injected cookies, cache poisoning, or corruption of security headers.
- Remediation
- Affected
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Sanic is an opensource python web server/framework. Prior to version 24.12.1, and in version 25.12.0, the HTTP/1.1 response pipeline in sanic/response/types.py serializes response header names and values without rejecting carriage-return or line-feed characters. Applications that place attacker-controlled data in response.headers, file(..., filename=...), or cookie path and domain attributes can therefore emit injected headers and may split responses. Depending on application and proxy behavior, this can enable session fixation through injected cookies, cache poisoning, or security-header corruption. This issue is fixed in versions 24.12.1 and 25.12.1.
What
Sanic is an opensource python web server/framework. Prior to version 24.12.1, and in version 25.12.0, the HTTP/1.1 response pipeline in sanic/response/types.py serializes response header names and values without rejecting carriage-return or line-feed characters. Applications that place attacker-controlled data in response.headers, file(..., filename=...), or cookie path and domain attributes can therefore emit injected headers and may split responses. Depending on application and proxy behavior, this can enable session fixation through injected cookies, cache poisoning, or security-header corruption. This issue is fixed in versions 24.12.1 and 25.12.1.
Why
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.
How
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.
What
Sanic is an opensource python web server/framework. Prior to version 24.12.1, and in version 25.12.0, the HTTP/1.1 response pipeline in sanic/response/types.py serializes response header names and values without rejecting carriage-return or line-feed characters. Applications that place attacker-controlled data in response.headers, file(..., filename=...), or cookie path and domain attributes can therefore emit injected headers and may split responses. Depending on application and proxy behavior, this can enable session fixation through injected cookies, cache poisoning, or security-header corruption. This issue is fixed in versions 24.12.1 and 25.12.1.
Why
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.
How
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.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting') → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-113 ↗
CWE-113: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting'). 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.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- rhai/guidellm-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 17 Sept 2026 · Last source change 21 Sept 2026, 20:45 UTC · CWE-113 · Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting')
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-18
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-81626
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD awaiting enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-81626 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-81626"}
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed from remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-85077 to remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-85077.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-85077
- After
- remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-85077
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- After
- rhai/guidellm-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift AI (RHOAI)
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.