Skip to content

HTTP/1.1 CL.TE Request Smuggling In `actix-http`

Moderate
JohnTitor published GHSA-xhj4-vrgc-hr34 Apr 18, 2026

Package

cargo actix-http (Rust)

Affected versions

< 3.12.0

Patched versions

3.12.1

Description

A vulnerability in actix-http's HTTP/1.1 request parser allows an unauthenticated remote client to smuggle requests in deployments where a front-end HTTP intermediary and the Actix backend disagree about whether Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding: chunked defines the request body length.

Severity

Medium.
This is an HTTP request smuggling vulnerability that can be triggered over the network without application-level credentials. Exploitation requires a specific proxy topology: an upstream proxy, WAF, load balancer, or similar intermediary must use Content-Length framing while forwarding the conflicting Transfer-Encoding: chunked request to an Actix backend over a reused HTTP/1.1 connection.

Affected Versions

  • actix-http: versions up to and including 3.12.0

Description

HTTP/1.1 requests that contain both Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding: chunked are ambiguous and must be rejected by recipients to avoid request smuggling.

Affected versions of actix-http accepted a request with a syntactically valid Content-Length header and Transfer-Encoding: chunked on the same HTTP/1.1 message. The parser then selected chunked decoding instead of rejecting the conflicting framing signals.

In a CL.TE proxy topology, an intermediary may treat bytes after the declared Content-Length body as part of the first request, while the Actix backend stops at the terminating chunk marker and parses the remaining bytes on the backend connection as a second HTTP request. This creates a backend-side request desynchronization primitive.

The issue is limited to HTTP/1.1 request parsing.

Impact

HTTP request smuggling

  • Attack Vector: Network, unauthenticated.
  • Effect: Backend request desynchronization with low integrity impact to requests processed by the vulnerable Actix service.
  • Scope: Actix services using affected actix-http versions behind an HTTP/1.1 intermediary that forwards ambiguous Content-Length plus Transfer-Encoding: chunked requests and reuses backend connections.

No direct confidentiality, availability, or subsequent-system impact is scored for this advisory.

Fixed Versions

This issue is fixed in actix-http 3.12.1.

The fix rejects HTTP/1.1 requests that contain both Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding: chunked instead of choosing one framing interpretation.

Mitigation

Users should upgrade to actix-http 3.12.1 or later.

Applications that depend on actix-http through actix-web, awc, or another Actix crate should ensure dependency resolution selects actix-http 3.12.1 or later. For example:

cargo update -p actix-http

If an immediate upgrade is not possible, configure all upstream HTTP intermediaries to reject HTTP/1.1 requests that contain both Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding, and avoid forwarding ambiguous request framing to Actix backends.

References

Credits

Thanks to mufeedvh who disclosed this issue through coordinated disclosure.

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVE ID

No known CVE

Weaknesses

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. Learn more on MITRE.

Credits