cve.bz

CAPEC-105

HTTP Request Splitting

High severityMedium likelihoodDetailed pattern

An adversary abuses the flexibility and discrepancies in the parsing and interpretation of HTTP Request messages by different intermediary HTTP agents (e.g., load balancer, reverse proxy, web caching proxies, application firewalls, etc.) to split a single HTTP request into multiple unauthorized and malicious HTTP requests to a back-end HTTP agent (e.g., web server).

See CanPrecede relationships for possible consequences.

On this page

This entails the adversary injecting malicious user input into various standard and/or user defined HTTP headers within a HTTP Request through user input of Carriage Return (CR), Line Feed (LF), Horizontal Tab (HT), Space (SP) characters as well as other valid/RFC compliant special characters and unique character encoding. This malicious user input allows for web script to be injected in HTTP headers as well as into browser cookies or Ajax web/browser object parameters like XMLHttpRequest during implementation of asynchronous requests.

This attack is usually the result of the usage of outdated or incompatible HTTP protocol versions as well as lack of syntax checking and filtering of user input in the HTTP agents receiving HTTP messages in the path.

This differs from CAPEC-34 HTTP Response Splitting, which is usually an attempt to compromise a client agent (e.g., web browser) by sending malicious content in HTTP responses from back-end HTTP infrastructure. HTTP Request Splitting is an attempt to compromise aback-end HTTP agentvia HTTP Request messages.

HTTP Smuggling (CAPEC-33 and CAPEC-273) is different from HTTP Splitting due to the fact it relies upon discrepancies in the interpretation of various HTTP Headers and message sizes and not solely user input of special characters and character encoding. HTTP Smuggling was established to circumvent mitigations against HTTP Request Splitting techniques.

Ask an AI about this attack pattern

ChatGPTClaudeGoogle AI Mode

Show the promptExplain the attack pattern CAPEC-105: HTTP Request Splitting: how it unfolds, what it needs and how to prevent and detect it in my systems. Use https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/105.html and https://cve.bz/cve/capec/105?via=ask-ai-copy, which lists recent CVEs with the weaknesses it exploits. Cite the sources.

Opens a third-party assistant; its answer is its own, not cve.bz's. The prompt holds only this attack pattern's id and public links.

How the attack unfolds

  1. Explore

    The attacker looks for a way in.

    1. [Survey network to identify target] The adversary performs network reconnaissance by monitoring relevant traffic to identify the network path and parsing of the HTTP messages with the goal of identifying potential targets.

      1 technique
      • Scan networks to fingerprint HTTP infrastructure and monitor HTTP traffic to identify HTTP network path with a tool such as a Network Protocol Analyzer.

  2. Experiment

    They probe what they found.

    1. [Identify vulnerabilities in targeted HTTP infrastructure and technologies] The adversary sends a variety of benign/ambiguous HTTP requests to observe responses from HTTP infrastructure in order to identify differences/discrepancies in the interpretation and parsing of HTTP requests by examining supported HTTP protocol versions, HTTP headers, syntax checking and input filtering.

    2. [Cause differential HTTP responses by experimenting with identified HTTP Request vulnerabilities] The adversary sends maliciously crafted HTTP requests with custom strings and embedded web scripts and objects in HTTP headers to interfere with the parsing of intermediary and back-end HTTP infrastructure, followed by normal/benign HTTP request from the adversary or a random user. The intended consequences of the malicious HTTP requests will be observed in the HTTP infrastructure response to the normal/benign HTTP request to confirm applicability of identified vulnerabilities in the adversary's plan of attack.

      3 techniques
      • Continue the monitoring of HTTP traffic.
      • Utilize different sequences of special characters (CR - Carriage Return, LF - Line Feed, HT - Horizontal Tab, SP - Space and etc.) to bypass filtering and back-end encoding and to embed: additional HTTP Requests with their own headers malicious web scripts into parameters of HTTP Request headers (e.g., browser cookies like Set-Cookie or Ajax web/browser object parameters like XMLHttpRequest) adversary chosen encoding (e.g., UTF-7) to utilize additional special characters (e.g., > and <) filtered by the target HTTP agent. Note that certain special characters and character encoding may be applicable only to intermediary and front-end agents with rare configurations or that are not RFC compliant.
      • Follow an unrecognized (sometimes a RFC compliant) HTTP header with a subsequent HTTP request to potentially cause the HTTP request to be ignored and interpreted as part of the preceding HTTP request.

  3. Exploit

    They carry out the attack.

    1. [Perform HTTP Request Splitting attack] Using knowledge discovered in the experiment section above, smuggle a message to cause one of the consequences.

      1 technique
      • Leverage techniques identified in the Experiment Phase.

Prerequisites

  • An additional intermediary HTTP agent such as an application firewall or a web caching proxy between the adversary and the second agent such as a web server, that sends multiple HTTP messages over same network connection.

  • Differences in the way the two HTTP agents parse and interpret HTTP requests and its headers.

  • HTTP headers capable of being user-manipulated.

  • HTTP agents running on HTTP/1.0 or HTTP/1.1 that allow for Keep Alive mode, Pipelined queries, and Chunked queries and responses.

Skills required

  • Medium skill

    Detailed knowledge on HTTP protocol: request and response messages structure and usage of specific headers.

  • Medium skill

    Detailed knowledge on how specific HTTP agents receive, send, process, interpret, and parse a variety of HTTP messages and headers.

  • Medium skill

    Possess knowledge on the exact details in the discrepancies between several targeted HTTP agents in path of an HTTP message in parsing its message structure and individual headers.

Resources required

  • Tools capable of crafting malicious HTTP messages and monitoring HTTP messages responses.

Signs of an attack

  • Differences in requests processed by the two agents. This requires careful monitoring or a capable log analysis tool.

Consequences

What a successful attack can lead to
ImpactAffectsNote
Execute Unauthorized CommandsConfidentiality, Integrity, Availability
Gain PrivilegesConfidentiality, Access Control, Authorization
Read DataConfidentiality
Modify DataIntegrity

Mitigations

  • Design: evaluate HTTP agents prior to deployment for parsing/interpretation discrepancies.

  • Configuration: front-end HTTP agents notice ambiguous requests.

  • Configuration: back-end HTTP agents reject ambiguous requests and close the network connection.

  • Configuration: Disable reuse of back-end connections.

  • Configuration: Use HTTP/2 for back-end connections.

  • Configuration: Use the same web server software for front-end and back-end server.

  • Implementation: Utilize a Web Application Firewall (WAF) that has built-in mitigation to detect abnormal requests/responses.

  • Configuration: Install latest vendor security patches available for both intermediary and back-end HTTP infrastructure (i.e. proxies and web servers)

  • Configuration: Ensure that HTTP infrastructure in the chain or network path utilize a strict uniform parsing process.

  • Implementation: Utilize intermediary HTTP infrastructure capable of filtering and/or sanitizing user-input.

Weaknesses it exploits

  • CWE-74 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component
  • CWE-113 Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers
  • CWE-138 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements
  • CWE-436 Interpretation Conflict

Recent CVEs with these weaknesses

  1. 8.2CVE-2026-125756

    postal-mime before 4.2.1 contains a parser differential vulnerability in its address parser that truncates the domain at folding whitespace or comments preceding a dot. Remote attackers can craft From headers that pass SPF/DKIM/DMARC align…

  2. 8.3CVE-2026-125755

    Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.4.1 contains an address parsing flaw in addressparser that truncates domains at folding whitespace or comments before a dot, allowing attackers to bypass recipient domain restrictions. Attackers can submit crafte…

  3. 5.1CVE-2026-117477

    KUSANAGI provided by GMO Prime Strategy Co., Ltd. contains an HTTP header injection vulnerability that may allow arbitrary HTTP headers to be injected into the HTTP response when a user accesses a specially crafted URL.

  4. 3.7CVE-2026-125108

    Rack is a modular Ruby web server interface. Prior to 2.2.25, 3.1.23, and 3.2.8, Rack::Multipart::Parser.parse_boundary can skip a leading empty or quoted boundary parameter in a multipart Content-Type header and accept a later parameter. …

  5. 5.3CVE-2026-63497

    titra is an open source time tracking project. In versions 1.0.3 and prior, authenticated API users can abuse the customfields object to inject or overwrite top-level fields in MongoDB documents. At time of publication, there are no public…

  6. 2.1CVE-2026-124987

    A vulnerability has been found in mikefarah yq up to 4.53.3. This affects the function Encode of the file pkg/yqlib/encoder_properties.go. Such manipulation leads to escaping of output. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The pul…

  7. 2.1CVE-2026-124625

    A security vulnerability has been detected in PipraPay 3.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function deleteData of the file pp-content/pp-include/pp-functions.php of the component Admin Panel. The manipulation of the argument selected_ids/…

  8. 5.1CVE-2026-124591

    A vulnerability was detected in Bahleel 0.1.0/0.1.1. Affected is the function fputcsv of the file app/Exporters/CsvExporter.php. The manipulation results in csv injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The project was informed of th…

The newest records naming one of them. Each weakness's page lists them all.

Part of
  • CAPEC-220 Client-Server Protocol Manipulation
Can lead to
Related to

Examples

Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.01 SP4 and prior, 6.0 SP2 and prior, and 7.0 contain a vulnerability t…

Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.01 SP4 and prior, 6.0 SP2 and prior, and 7.0 contain a vulnerability that could allow an unauthenticated, remote adversary to conduct HTTP request splitting and smuggling attacks. The vulnerability is due to an input validation error in the browser that allows adversaries to manipulate certain headers to expose the browser to HTTP request splitting and smuggling attacks. Attacks may include cross-site scripting, proxy cache poisoning, and session fixation. In certain instances, an exploit could allow the adversary to bypass web application firewalls or other filtering devices. Microsoft has confirmed the vulnerability and released software updates.

MITRE's words, unchanged: CAPEC-105 at MITRE. CAPEC is Copyright © 2007–2026, The MITRE Corporation, used under the CAPEC terms of use: “The MITRE Corporation (MITRE) hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC™) for research, development, and commercial purposes. Any copy you make for such purposes is authorized provided that you reproduce MITRE’s copyright designation and this license in any such copy.” CAPEC and the CAPEC logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Credits. All attack patterns.