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 0.51% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-85078High confidence
sanic chunked trailer request smuggling allows hidden second request execution
sanic-org · sanic
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-WMJ6-G64G-J7Q5 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
6.5MediumCVSS 3.1
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. 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.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- 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.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
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.
- Red Hat Product Security: 1 affected or under-investigation product state without a fixed product state in the same current advisory
Open-source package ranges5 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPIsanic | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0; fixed 24.12.1 | 24.12.1 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIsanic | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 25.12.0; fixed 25.12.1 | 25.12.1 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 1 Oct 2026 |
| PyPIsanic | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0; fixed 24.12.1; introduced 25.12.0; fixed 25.12.1 | 24.12.1, 25.12.1 | OSV record ↗source linked ecosystem record · 1 Oct 2026 |
| pipsanic | < 24.12.1 | 24.12.1 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 17 Sep 2026 |
| pipsanic | >= 25.12.0, < 25.12.1 | 25.12.1 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 17 Sep 2026 |
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-2026-85078 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitysanic: Sanic: Request smuggling via incomplete chunked-body handling
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, an open-source Python web server/framework. A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit incomplete handling of HTTP/1.1 chunked-body requests. By injecting malicious data into the request's trailer section, the attacker can cause Sanic to process a hidden second request. This vulnerability, known as HTTP request smuggling, can bypass security measures when Sanic is deployed behind other network devices.
- Remediation
- Affected
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. 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 product01
What, why and how
Sanic is an opensource python web server/framework. In version 25.12.0, Sanic's core HTTP/1.1 chunked-body handling does not fully consume the trailer-part after the terminating zero chunk before reusing the keep-alive connection buffer. A remote unauthenticated client can place attacker-controlled bytes in that trailer region, causing Sanic to parse and route them as a hidden second request after the outer request. This breaks HTTP request-boundary integrity and can provide a request-smuggling primitive when Sanic is deployed behind intermediaries. This issue is fixed in version 25.12.1.
What
Sanic is an opensource python web server/framework. In version 25.12.0, Sanic's core HTTP/1.1 chunked-body handling does not fully consume the trailer-part after the terminating zero chunk before reusing the keep-alive connection buffer. A remote unauthenticated client can place attacker-controlled bytes in that trailer region, causing Sanic to parse and route them as a hidden second request after the outer request. This breaks HTTP request-boundary integrity and can provide a request-smuggling primitive when Sanic is deployed behind intermediaries. This issue is fixed in version 25.12.1.
Why
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.
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. In version 25.12.0, Sanic's core HTTP/1.1 chunked-body handling does not fully consume the trailer-part after the terminating zero chunk before reusing the keep-alive connection buffer. A remote unauthenticated client can place attacker-controlled bytes in that trailer region, causing Sanic to parse and route them as a hidden second request after the outer request. This breaks HTTP request-boundary integrity and can provide a request-smuggling primitive when Sanic is deployed behind intermediaries. This issue is fixed in version 25.12.1.
Why
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.
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 → Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') → 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-444 ↗
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 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:N/I:L/A:LCommon 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.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ALowAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.- 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 availability varies by product
- Fixed
- 25.12.1.
- Action
- Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
- 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 17 Sept 2026, 19:19 UTC · CWE-444 · Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')
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-2026-81577
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-2026-81577 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-81577"}
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed from remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-85078 to remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-85078.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-85078
- After
- remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-85078
- 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 ↗
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
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.