Skip to content

Conversation

@renovate
Copy link

@renovate renovate bot commented Apr 26, 2025

This PR contains the following updates:

Package Change Age Adoption Passing Confidence
h11 ==0.12.0 -> ==0.16.0 age adoption passing confidence

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2025-43859

Impact

A leniency in h11's parsing of line terminators in chunked-coding message bodies can lead to request smuggling vulnerabilities under certain conditions.

Details

HTTP/1.1 Chunked-Encoding bodies are formatted as a sequence of "chunks", each of which consists of:

  • chunk length
  • \r\n
  • length bytes of content
  • \r\n

In versions of h11 up to 0.14.0, h11 instead parsed them as:

  • chunk length
  • \r\n
  • length bytes of content
  • any two bytes

i.e. it did not validate that the trailing \r\n bytes were correct, and if you put 2 bytes of garbage there it would be accepted, instead of correctly rejecting the body as malformed.

By itself this is harmless. However, suppose you have a proxy or reverse-proxy that tries to analyze HTTP requests, and your proxy has a different bug in parsing Chunked-Encoding, acting as if the format is:

  • chunk length
  • \r\n
  • length bytes of content
  • more bytes of content, as many as it takes until you find a \r\n

For example, pound had this bug -- it can happen if an implementer uses a generic "read until end of line" helper to consumes the trailing \r\n.

In this case, h11 and your proxy may both accept the same stream of bytes, but interpret them differently. For example, consider the following HTTP request(s) (assume all line breaks are \r\n):

GET /one HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost
Transfer-Encoding: chunked

5
AAAAAXX2
45
0

GET /two HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost
Transfer-Encoding: chunked

0

Here h11 will interpret it as two requests, one with body AAAAA45 and one with an empty body, while our hypothetical buggy proxy will interpret it as a single request, with body AAAAXX20\r\n\r\nGET /two .... And any time two HTTP processors both accept the same string of bytes but interpret them differently, you have the conditions for a "request smuggling" attack. For example, if /two is a dangerous endpoint and the job of the reverse proxy is to stop requests from getting there, then an attacker could use a bytestream like the above to circumvent this protection.

Even worse, if our buggy reverse proxy receives two requests from different users:

GET /one HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost
Transfer-Encoding: chunked

5
AAAAAXX999
0
GET /two HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost
Cookie: SESSION_KEY=abcdef...

...it will consider the first request to be complete and valid, and send both on to the h11-based web server over the same socket. The server will then see the two concatenated requests, and interpret them as one request to /one whose body includes /two's session key, potentially allowing one user to steal another's credentials.

Patches

Fixed in h11 0.15.0.

Workarounds

Since exploitation requires the combination of buggy h11 with a buggy (reverse) proxy, fixing either component is sufficient to mitigate this issue.

Credits

Reported by Jeppe Bonde Weikop on 2025-01-09.


Release Notes

python-hyper/h11 (h11)

v0.16.0

Compare Source

v0.15.0

Compare Source

v0.14.0

Compare Source

v0.13.0

Compare Source


Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Enabled.

Rebasing: Whenever PR is behind base branch, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.

@renovate renovate bot added the 🎲 dependencies Working on dependencies label Apr 26, 2025
@renovate renovate bot requested a review from billsioros as a code owner April 26, 2025 19:51
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented May 3, 2025

This issue has been marked stale, as it had no activity in the last 7 days. If the issue remains stale for an additional 7 days (a total of two weeks with no activity), it will be automatically closed.

@stale stale bot added the 💀 stale This had no recent activity label May 3, 2025
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented May 10, 2025

Closing the issue due to inactivity.

@stale stale bot closed this May 10, 2025
@renovate
Copy link
Author

renovate bot commented May 10, 2025

Renovate Ignore Notification

Because you closed this PR without merging, Renovate will ignore this update (==0.16.0). You will get a PR once a newer version is released. To ignore this dependency forever, add it to the ignoreDeps array of your Renovate config.

If you accidentally closed this PR, or if you changed your mind: rename this PR to get a fresh replacement PR.

@renovate renovate bot deleted the renovate/pypi-h11-vulnerability branch May 10, 2025 21:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

🎲 dependencies Working on dependencies 💀 stale This had no recent activity

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant