GHSA-26pp-8wgv-hjvm
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
Cookie names are not validated on the write path when using setCookie(), serialize(), or serializeSigned() to generate Set-Cookie headers.
While certain cookie attributes such as domain and path are validated, the cookie name itself may contain invalid characters.
This results in inconsistent handling of cookie names between parsing (read path) and serialization (write path).
Details
When applications use setCookie(), serialize(), or serializeSigned() with a user-controlled cookie name, invalid values (e.g., containing control characters such as \r or \n) can be used to construct malformed Set-Cookie header values.
For example:
Set-Cookie: legit
X-Injected: evil=value
However, in modern runtimes such as Node.js and Cloudflare Workers, such invalid header values are rejected and result in a runtime error before the response is sent.
As a result, the reported header injection / response splitting behavior could not be reproduced in these environments.
Impact
Applications that pass untrusted input as the cookie name to setCookie(), serialize(), or serializeSigned() may encounter runtime errors due to invalid header values.
In tested environments, malformed Set-Cookie headers are rejected before being sent, and the reported header injection behavior could not be reproduced.
This issue primarily affects correctness and robustness rather than introducing a confirmed exploitable vulnerability.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting')
GitHub
3.9
CVSS SCORE
5.3medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hono | npm | - | - | <4.12.12 | 4.12.12 |
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).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
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 no loss of confidentiality.
There is no loss of trust or accuracy within the impacted component.
Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Chainguard
CGA-5638-w48x-xg3x
-
minimos
MINI-cqrj-rf6g-v432
-