CVE-2026-78660
UnknownSummary
Historically, the HTTP/2 implementation has been rather lax about malformed framing-related headers, as they cannot interfere with HTTP/2 framing. However, this makes it possible to forward responses containing such headers to an HTTP/1 client when acting as a reverse proxy. If the HTTP/1 client also does not behave strictly enough, this can result in response smuggling.
Risk Assessment
This can lead to response smuggling, potentially allowing an attacker to inject malicious content into responses.
Recommendation
Update the HTTP/2 implementation to a version with the fix that more strictly validates framing headers.
Other vulnerabilities in Go net/http
See all- CVE-2026-94440Unknown
Parsing a multipart form can bypass memory limits and read an arbitrarily long line into memory when the remaining limit at the start of a part is less than 400 bytes.
- CVE-2026-94439Unknown
When an HTTP server handler sends a 2xx response to an HTTP/1 CONNECT request and returns without hijacking the connection, the server improperly continues to read and serve requests from the connection. Since a 2xx response to CONNECT converts the connection into a tunnel, the server should not treat it as continuing to contain HTTP.
- CVE-2026-78669Unknown
A malicious HTTP/2 peer can cause excessive CPU consumption in the client or server by opening a large number of streams and then sending many small SETTINGS frames containing SETTINGS_INITIAL_WINDOW_SIZE values.
- CVE-2026-78667Unknown
When parsing a Range header containing a large number of small ranges, FileServer(FS), ServeContent, and ServeFile(FS) can consume an excessive amount of CPU.
- CVE-2026-78663Unknown
The HTTP/2 server can refund connection-level flow control twice for the same data: once when a client resets a stream, and again when a request handler reads the buffered data. A malicious client can exploit this to bypass the configured connection-level flow control limit (MaxReceiveBufferPerConnection).
- CVE-2026-78659Unknown
When "Trailer" headers are sent by a client, the HTTP server internally uses the header values to populate the Request.Trailer map passed to the server handler. Because Request.Trailer is a map, each entry incurs memory overhead. For HTTP/2 servers, a malicious client can exploit this by sending a "Trailer" header that declares a large number of fields, causing the server to allocate a disproportionate amount of memory while bypassing Server.MaxHeaderValueCount and Server.MaxHeaderBytes limits.
- CVE-2026-56866Unknown
When http.Transport sends an HTTP/1 CONNECT request with a non-empty Request.Body, it writes the body directly to the connection without framing after the request headers. If the server rejects the CONNECT request with a non-2xx keep-alive response, Transport returns the connection to the idle pool. Because CONNECT requests do not have a request body, the server may interpret the trailing body bytes as a subsequent pipelined HTTP/1.1 request on the connection, leaving the pooled connection desynchronized and causing the next caller that reuses it to read the response to the injected request.
- CVE-2023-45289Medium
A vulnerability in the Go standard library (net/http) causes the HTTP client to not forward sensitive headers like Authorization or Cookie when following a redirect to a domain that is not a subdomain or exact match of the original domain. For example, a redirect from foo.com to www.foo.com will forward the Authorization header, but a redirect to a different domain will not.
- CVE-2023-39326Medium
A vulnerability in the Go net/http library allows a malicious HTTP sender to use chunk extensions to force a receiver to read many more bytes from the network than are in the body. A malicious HTTP client can exploit this to cause a server to automatically read a large amount of data (up to about 1 GiB).
Original NVD description (English source)
Historically, we have been rather lax about malformed framing-related headers in our HTTP/2 implementation, as they cannot interfere with HTTP/2 framing. However, this makes it possible for our HTTP/2 implementation to forward responses containing such headers to an HTTP/1 client when acting as a reverse proxy. If the HTTP/1 client also does not behave strictly enough, this can result in response smuggling.
Vulnerability data from NVD (NIST) · CISA KEV · EPSS

