Skip to content

ProcessURI silently drops QUERY_STRING and ARGS_GET on URI parse failure — defense-in-depth bypass for non-net/http integrations

Moderate
fzipi published GHSA-x26q-wvhg-fh4m Oct 2, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/corazawaf/coraza/v3 (Go)

Affected versions

>= 3.0.0, < 3.8.0

Patched versions

3.8.0

Description

Root Cause

File: internal/corazawaf/transaction.go, lines 834–866.

parsedURL, err := url.ParseRequestURI(uri)
query := ""
if err != nil {
    tx.variables.urlencodedError.Set(err.Error())
    path = uri
    tx.variables.requestURI.Set(uri)
    /*
        tx.Variables.VARIABLE_URI_PARSE_ERROR.Set("1")
        posRawQuery := strings.Index(uri, "?")
        if posRawQuery != -1 {
            tx.ExtractArguments("GET", uri[posRawQuery+1:])
            path = uri[:posRawQuery]
            query = uri[posRawQuery+1:]
        } else {
            path = uri
        }
        tx.Variables.RequestUri.Set(uri)
    */
} else {
    tx.ExtractGetArguments(parsedURL.RawQuery)   // only path that populates ARGS_GET
    tx.variables.requestURI.Set(parsedURL.String())
    path = parsedURL.Path
    query = parsedURL.RawQuery
}
...
tx.variables.queryString.Set(query)

When url.ParseRequestURI(uri) returns an error — which Go's stdlib does for any URI containing raw control bytes (\x00, \n, \r, \t, other 0x00–0x1F, 0x7F) — the error branch silently produces an empty QUERY_STRING and an empty ARGS_GET collection. The fallback logic that should split on ? and populate the GET arguments from the raw tail is already present in the source as a commented-out block, referencing a VARIABLE_URI_PARSE_ERROR variable that was never wired up.

Consequences on the error branch:

  • ARGS_GET / ARGS_GET_NAMES / ARGS (union) are empty — ExtractGetArguments is never called.
  • QUERY_STRING is empty (initial query := "" at line 835 persists through to queryString.Set(query) at line 866).
  • REQUEST_FILENAME / REQUEST_BASENAME contain the entire URI including any ?… query suffix (because path = uri at line 838 bypasses the parse, and the subsequent strings.LastIndexAny(path, "/\\") runs over the raw URI).
  • URLENCODED_ERROR is set to the Go error message. That variable is also set by the urlencoded body processor on body-decode failures, so an operator cannot distinguish "malformed URI" from "malformed request body" without string-matching the error text.
  • REQUEST_URI_RAW (set unconditionally at line 822, before the parse) is populated correctly.

Any rule targeting ARGS_GET, ARGS, ARGS_NAMES, ARGS_GET_NAMES, or QUERY_STRING — which is the default target set for the vast majority of OWASP CRS GET-side signature rules — does not fire against attacker content that reaches Coraza via a URI Go's net/url rejects.

Reachability

This issue does not affect the standard coraza/v3/http + net/http integration. Go's http.ReadRequest calls url.ParseRequestURI first and rejects malformed URIs with 400 Bad Request before ProcessURI is invoked. Verified experimentally against a Coraza-wrapped net/http server — a raw request with a control-byte-laced URI produced HTTP 400, and the handler was never reached.

The bug is reachable when an integration forwards raw URI bytes to tx.ProcessURI directly, bypassing Go's HTTP parser:

  • coraza-spoa — HAProxy SPOP agent. Receives URI from HAProxy, which permits bytes net/http rejects.
  • coraza-proxy-wasm — Envoy WASM filter. Passes the :path pseudo-header from Envoy.
  • Custom FFI/WASM hosts and any embedder calling tx.ProcessURI(rawURI, method, httpVersion) with bytes not pre-validated by Go's URL parser.

This gates the attack to Attack Complexity:High — a standard Go HTTP deployment is not exposed.

Proof of Concept

Direct-API reproduction (simulating the non-net/http integration path):

waf, _ := coraza.NewWAF(coraza.NewWAFConfig().WithDirectives(`
SecRuleEngine On
SecRule ARGS_GET     "@contains ATTACK_HERE_XYZ" "id:9001,phase:1,deny,status:403"
SecRule QUERY_STRING "@contains ATTACK_HERE_XYZ" "id:9002,phase:1,deny,status:403"
`))

for _, uri := range []string{
    "/search?q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ",                    // baseline
    "/search?q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ\x00&y=1",            // NUL byte
    "/search?q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ\ninjected: header",  // bare LF
    "/search?q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ\rhdr: x",            // bare CR
    "/search?q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ\tx=1",               // tab
} {
    tx := waf.NewTransaction()
    tx.ProcessURI(uri, "GET", "HTTP/1.1")
    it := tx.ProcessRequestHeaders()
    // inspect tx.Variables().QueryString().Get() and tx.Variables().ArgsGet().FindAll()
    tx.Close()
}

Observed:

URI QUERY_STRING ARGS_GET interrupted?
/search?q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ 1 entry yes (403)
/search?q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ\x00&y=1 "" 0 entries no — BYPASS
/search?q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ\ninjected: header "" 0 entries no — BYPASS
/search?q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ\rhdr: x "" 0 entries no — BYPASS
/search?q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ\tx=1 "" 0 entries no — BYPASS

REQUEST_URI_RAW is populated correctly in every case (line 822 sets it before the parse), so a rule written against REQUEST_URI_RAW still catches the attack. CRS and most operator-written rules target ARGS_GET / ARGS / QUERY_STRING — those do not fire.

HTTP-layer reachability check (stock net/http):

$ printf 'GET /?q=ATTACK_HERE_XYZ\x00&y=1 HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: x\r\n\r\n' | nc 127.0.0.1 8092
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request

Confirms the exposure is limited to non-net/http integrations.

Mitigation

Recommended fixes, in order:

1. Re-enable the existing fallback and wire up URI_PARSE_ERROR

The code to fix this is already present as a commented-out block at transaction.go:840–851. Re-enable it, promote the referenced VARIABLE_URI_PARSE_ERROR to a real transaction variable, and populate ARGS_GET / QUERY_STRING from the raw ?… tail:

if err != nil {
    tx.variables.urlencodedError.Set(err.Error())
    tx.variables.uriParseError.Set("1")               // new variable
    tx.variables.requestURI.Set(uri)
    if i := strings.Index(uri, "?"); i != -1 {
        path = uri[:i]
        query = uri[i+1:]
        tx.ExtractGetArguments(query)                  // populate ARGS_GET
    } else {
        path = uri
    }
} else {
    ...
}

2. Ship a companion rule in coraza.conf-recommended

SecRule URI_PARSE_ERROR "@eq 1" \
    "id:'200010',phase:1,t:none,log,deny,status:400,msg:'URI failed to parse'"

This gives operators a fail-closed default (analogous to rule 200003 for multipart strict error and rule 200002 for body-parse error), so non-net/http integrations at least stop the request regardless of downstream rule coverage.

3. Do not overload URLENCODED_ERROR

The current code uses URLENCODED_ERROR for URI parse failures. That variable is also set by the urlencoded body processor on body-decode errors; operators cannot distinguish the two causes without string-matching the error text, and any rule they add will fire on both classes of failure. A dedicated URI_PARSE_ERROR variable (per the commented-out TODO) is the right shape.

Affected versions

All releases on the v3 branch (>= 3.0.0, <= 3.7.0); the silent-drop behavior has been present since the first v3 release. Only deployments using non-net/http integrations (coraza-spoa, coraza-proxy-wasm, custom FFI) are exposed in practice.

References

  • internal/corazawaf/transaction.go lines 834–866 (ProcessURI error branch)
  • internal/corazawaf/transaction.go line 822 (REQUEST_URI_RAW is populated before the parse, which is why REQUEST_URI_RAW-targeted rules still catch the attack)
  • Commented-out fallback at lines 840–851 referencing VARIABLE_URI_PARSE_ERROR
  • CWE-20 — Improper Input Validation
  • CWE-436 — Interpretation Conflict

Severity (revised 2026-10-02)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N (4.0, Medium).

Attack Complexity stays High: the bypass only applies to integrations that pass Coraza a raw URI that Go's URL parser rejects, which net/http does not. The previous vector scored Integrity High (6.8); it is scored here like Coraza's other inspection bypasses.

Impact metrics follow the convention used across Coraza's WAF-bypass advisories: the vulnerable component is Coraza, but the impact lands on the protected application, so Scope is Changed. The bypass hides a payload from inspection; the application still has to be vulnerable to it, so Integrity is Low and Confidentiality is not scored separately.

AI involvement in this section: Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), via Claude Code, re-derived the CVSS vector from the project's triage guidance (AGENTS.md, "CVSS preconditions get verified, not copied from the report") and drafted this text. A human maintainer (fzipi) chose the S:C/I:L impact convention and directed this update.

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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N

CVE ID

No known CVE

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.

Interpretation Conflict

Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state. Learn more on MITRE.