CVE-2026-71849
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
The Proxy Helper (hono/proxy) does not remove response headers named by the origin's Connection header. Headers that the origin marked as connection-scoped are therefore forwarded to clients.
Details
Per RFC 9110 Section 7.6.1, an intermediary must remove the header fields listed in a message's Connection header field before forwarding the message, in addition to the well-known hop-by-hop headers. The proxy() function removed the well-known hop-by-hop headers (including Connection itself) from origin responses, but did not remove the headers that the response's Connection header field designated as connection-scoped.
This issue arises when an application proxies responses from an origin that declares additional, non-standard headers as hop-by-hop via the Connection response header.
Impact
A client may receive response headers that the origin intended only for its immediate peer. This may lead to:
- Disclosure of connection-scoped or internal metadata contained in such headers
This issue affects applications that use the Proxy Helper (hono/proxy) to forward responses from origins that list custom header names in their Connection response header. Applications whose origins only use the standard hop-by-hop headers are not affected.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
GitHub
2.2
CVSS SCORE
3.7low| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hono | npm | - | - | >=4.7.0,<4.12.34 | 4.12.34 |
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.
There is no loss of trust or accuracy within the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
NIST
2.2