CVE-2026-59897
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
The AWS API Gateway v1 adapter can drop a distinct repeated request header value. When a header appears multiple times, the adapter de-duplicates values using a substring comparison instead of an exact match, so a value that is a substring of another value of the same header is omitted (for example, 203.0.113.1 is dropped when another value is 203.0.113.10).
Details
A repeated request header carries an ordered list of values. Middleware or application logic that depends on the complete list — such as IP restriction that walks the X-Forwarded-For chain, rate limiting, audit logging, or proxy-chain validation — can therefore receive incomplete data that differs from what the client actually sent.
This issue arises on deployments using the AWS API Gateway v1 adapter (the same pattern also affects the VPC Lattice adapter), for requests that contain the same header more than once.
Impact
An attacker can craft repeated header values so that one value is omitted before the application sees the request. Where a security or routing decision relies on the full chain, this can alter that decision.
This affects applications deployed through Hono's AWS API Gateway v1 (or VPC Lattice) adapter that rely on the complete set of repeated request header values.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Use of Less Trusted Source
GitHub
2.2
CVSS SCORE
4.8medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hono | npm | - | - | >=4.3.3,<4.12.27 | 4.12.27 |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control, requiring investing a measurable amount of effort in research, preparation, or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack.
The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.
An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.