Total
72 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2018-12537 | 2 Eclipse, Redhat | 3 Vert.x, Jboss Fuse, Openshift Application Runtimes | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| In Eclipse Vert.x version 3.0 to 3.5.1, the HttpServer response headers and HttpClient request headers do not filter carriage return and line feed characters from the header value. This allow unfiltered values to inject a new header in the client request or server response. | ||||
| CVE-2018-12477 | 1 Opensuse | 1 Leap | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| A Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences vulnerability in Open Build Service allows remote attackers to cause deletion of directories by tricking obs-service-refresh_patches to delete them. Affected releases are openSUSE Open Build Service: versions prior to d6244245dda5367767efc989446fe4b5e4609cce. | ||||
| CVE-2018-1000164 | 2 Debian, Gunicorn | 2 Debian Linux, Gunicorn | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| gunicorn version 19.4.5 contains a CWE-113: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers vulnerability in "process_headers" function in "gunicorn/http/wsgi.py" that can result in an attacker causing the server to return arbitrary HTTP headers. This vulnerability appears to have been fixed in 19.5.0. | ||||
| CVE-2017-7528 | 1 Redhat | 2 Ansible Tower, Cloudforms Management Engine | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| Ansible Tower as shipped with Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine 5 is vulnerable to CRLF Injection. It was found that X-Forwarded-For header allows internal servers to deploy other systems (using callback). | ||||
| CVE-2017-18587 | 1 Hyper | 1 Hyper | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| An issue was discovered in the hyper crate before 0.9.18 for Rust. It mishandles newlines in headers. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15400 | 1 Google | 1 Chrome Os | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| Insufficient restriction of IPP filters in CUPS in Google Chrome OS prior to 62.0.3202.74 allowed a remote attacker to execute a command with the same privileges as the cups daemon via a crafted PPD file, aka a printer zeroconfig CRLF issue. | ||||
| CVE-2016-4975 | 2 Apache, Redhat | 3 Http Server, Enterprise Linux, Jboss Core Services | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| Possible CRLF injection allowing HTTP response splitting attacks for sites which use mod_userdir. This issue was mitigated by changes made in 2.4.25 and 2.2.32 which prohibit CR or LF injection into the "Location" or other outbound header key or value. Fixed in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.25 (Affected 2.4.1-2.4.23). Fixed in Apache HTTP Server 2.2.32 (Affected 2.2.0-2.2.31). | ||||
| CVE-2016-10803 | 1 Cpanel | 1 Cpanel | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| cPanel before 57.9999.105 allows newline injection via LOC records (CPANEL-6923). | ||||
| CVE-2014-9563 | 2 Atos, Unify | 8 Openscape Desk Phone Ip 35g, Openscape Desk Phone Ip 35g Eco, Openscape Desk Phone Ip 55g and 5 more | 2024-11-21 | 4.9 Medium |
| CRLF injection vulnerability in the web-based management (WBM) interface in Unify (former Siemens) OpenStage SIP and OpenScape Desk Phone IP V3 devices before R3.32.0 allows remote authenticated users to modify the root password and consequently access the debug port using the serial interface via the ssh-password parameter to page.cmd. | ||||
| CVE-2014-2017 | 1 Oxidforge | 1 Eshop | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| CRLF injection vulnerability in OXID eShop Professional Edition before 4.7.11 and 4.8.x before 4.8.4, Enterprise Edition before 5.0.11 and 5.1.x before 5.1.4, and Community Edition before 4.7.11 and 4.8.x before 4.8.4 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers and conduct HTTP response splitting attacks via unspecified vectors. | ||||
| CVE-2024-51501 | 1 Reactiveui | 1 Refit | 2024-11-08 | N/A |
| Refit is an automatic type-safe REST library for .NET Core, Xamarin and .NET The various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. The way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the `HttpHeaders.TryAddWithoutValidation` method. This method does not check for CRLF characters in the header value. This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. If an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit and not in Refit itself. This issue has been addressed in release versions 7.2.22 and 8.0.0 and all users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability. | ||||
| CVE-2024-45302 | 1 Restsharp | 1 Restsharp | 2024-10-01 | 6.1 Medium |
| RestSharp is a Simple REST and HTTP API Client for .NET. The second argument to `RestRequest.AddHeader` (the header value) is vulnerable to CRLF injection. The same applies to `RestRequest.AddOrUpdateHeader` and `RestClient.AddDefaultHeader`. The way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the `HttpHeaders.TryAddWithoutValidation` method which does not check for CRLF characters in the header value. This means that any headers from a `RestSharp.RequestHeaders` object are added to the request in such a way that they are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. If an application using the RestSharp library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using RestSharp, not in RestSharp itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the RestSharp documentation. RestSharp has addressed this issue in version 112.0.0. All users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability. | ||||