CVE-2021-21295

lowpriority · track · 31EPSS 0.189 · 97 %ileDEEURUUS
grimoire priorityP1 · Urgent
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
18.9% (97th) EPSS
CVSS 2.6 · low
Is it mine?
24 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
6 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · fstec_bdu · osv

EPSS · scored 2026-10-27

Netty is an open-source, asynchronous event-driven network application framework for rapid development of maintainable high performance protocol servers & clients. In Netty (io.netty:netty-codec-http2) before version 4.1.60.Final there is a vulnerability that enables request smuggling. If a Content-Length header is present in the original HTTP/2 request, the field is not validated by `Http2MultiplexHandler` as it is propagated up. This is fine as long as the request is not proxied through as HTTP/1.1. If the request comes in as an HTTP/2 stream, gets converted into the HTTP/1.1 domain objects (`HttpRequest`, `HttpContent`, etc.) via `Http2StreamFrameToHttpObjectCodec `and then sent up to the child channel's pipeline and proxied through a remote peer as HTTP/1.1 this may result in request smuggling. In a proxy case, users may assume the content-length is validated somehow, which is not the case. If the request is forwarded to a backend channel that is a HTTP/1.1 connection, the Content-Length now has meaning and needs to be checked. An attacker can smuggle requests inside the body as it gets downgraded from HTTP/2 to HTTP/1.1. For an example attack refer to the linked GitHub Advisory. Users are only affected if all of this is true: `HTTP2MultiplexCodec` or `Http2FrameCodec` is used, `Http2StreamFrameToHttpObjectCodec` is used to convert to HTTP/1.1 objects, and these HTTP/1.1 objects are forwarded to another remote peer. This has been patched in 4.1.60.Final As a workaround, the user can do the validation by themselves by implementing a custom `ChannelInboundHandler` that is put in the `ChannelPipeline` behind `Http2StreamFrameToHttpObjectCodec`.

01

cvss

Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.

5.9
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode⚠ sources disagree · low–medium · 2.6–5.9

v2.02.6lowAV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:Nprimary · NVD / NIST USexploitability 4.9 · impact 2.9
v3.15.9mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:Nprimary · NVD / NIST USexploitability 2.2 · impact 3.6
v3.15.9mediumAV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:Nsecondary · FSTEC (BDU) RU
v3.15.9mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:Nsecondary · ENISA EU
v3.15.9mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:Nsecondary · security-advisories@github.comexploitability 2.2 · impact 3.6
v3.15.9mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:Nsecondary · OSV
v3.15.4mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N/E:Usecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

03

affected products (24)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

showing 20 of 24
04

advisories (6)

Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.

  • WID-SEC-W-2022-0567Red Hat OpenShift: Mehrere SchwachstellenDeutsch2021-03-24csaf · cert_bundDE

    Ein entfernter, anonymer oder lokaler Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Red Hat OpenShift ausnutzen, um Sicherheitsvorkehrungen zu umgehen oder Informationen offenzulegen.

  • WID-SEC-W-2023-0809IBM QRadar SIEM: Mehrere SchwachstellenDeutsch2023-03-30csaf · cert_bundDE

    Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in IBM QRadar SIEM ausnutzen, um beliebigen Programmcode auszuführen, Informationen offenzulegen, Informationen falsch darzustellen, einen Denial of Service Zustand herbeizuführen, Sicherheitsvorkehrungen zu umgehen, einen Cross-Site-Scripting-Angriff durchzuführen oder unbekannte Auswirkungen zu verursachen.

  • WID-SEC-W-2024-0794Dell ECS: Mehrere SchwachstellenDeutsch2024-04-04csaf · cert_bundDE

    Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Dell ECS ausnutzen, um seine Privilegien zu erweitern, beliebigen Programmcode mit Administratorrechten auszuführen, Informationen offenzulegen, Dateien zu manipulieren, einen Cross-Site-Scripting-Angriff durchzuführen, Sicherheitsvorkehrungen zu umgehen oder einen Denial of Service Zustand herbeizuführen.

  • WID-SEC-W-2025-1459Dell Data Protection Advisor: Mehrere SchwachstellenDeutsch2025-07-03csaf · cert_bundDE

    Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Dell Data Protection Advisor ausnutzen, um beliebigen Programmcode auszuführen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff durchzuführen, und um weitere nicht näher spezifizierte Angriffe durchzuführen.

  • GHSA-wm47-8v5p-wjpjPossible request smuggling in HTTP/2 due missing validation2021-03-09ghsa · osvUS

    ### Impact If a Content-Length header is present in the original HTTP/2 request, the field is not validated by `Http2MultiplexHandler` as it is propagated up. This is fine as long as the request is not proxied through as HTTP/1.1. If the request comes in as an HTTP/2 stream, gets converted into the HTTP/1.1 domain objects (`HttpRequest`, `HttpContent`, etc.) via `Http2StreamFrameToHttpObjectCodec `and then sent up to the child channel's pipeline and proxied through a remote peer as HTTP/1.1 this may result in request smuggling. In a proxy case, users may assume the content-length is validated somehow, which is not the case. If the request is forwarded to a backend channel that is a HTTP/1.1 connection, the Content-Length now has meaning and needs to be checked. An attacker can smuggle requests inside the body as it gets downgraded from HTTP/2 to HTTP/1.1. A sample attack request looks like: ``` POST / HTTP/2 :authority:: externaldomain.com Content-Length: 4 asdfGET /evilRedirect HTTP/1.1 Host: internaldomain.com ``` Users are only affected if all of this is `true`: * `HTTP2MultiplexCodec` or `Http2FrameCodec` is used * `Http2StreamFrameToHttpObjectCodec` is used to convert to HTTP/1.1 objects * These HTTP/1.1 objects are forwarded to another remote peer. ### Patches This has been patched in 4.1.60.Final ### Workarounds The user can do the validation by themselves by implementing a custom `ChannelInboundHandler` that is put in the `ChannelPipeline` behind `Http2StreamFrameToHttpObjectCodec`. ### References Related change to workaround the problem: https://github.com/Netflix/zuul/pull/980

  • BIT-zookeeper-2021-21295Possible request smuggling in HTTP/2 due missing validation2024-03-06vendor · osvUS

    Netty is an open-source, asynchronous event-driven network application framework for rapid development of maintainable high performance protocol servers & clients. In Netty (io.netty:netty-codec-http2) before version 4.1.60.Final there is a vulnerability that enables request smuggling. If a Content-Length header is present in the original HTTP/2 request, the field is not validated by `Http2MultiplexHandler` as it is propagated up. This is fine as long as the request is not proxied through as HTTP/1.1. If the request comes in as an HTTP/2 stream, gets converted into the HTTP/1.1 domain objects (`HttpRequest`, `HttpContent`, etc.) via `Http2StreamFrameToHttpObjectCodec `and then sent up to the child channel's pipeline and proxied through a remote peer as HTTP/1.1 this may result in request smuggling. In a proxy case, users may assume the content-length is validated somehow, which is not the case. If the request is forwarded to a backend channel that is a HTTP/1.1 connection, the Content-Length now has meaning and needs to be checked. An attacker can smuggle requests inside the body as it gets downgraded from HTTP/2 to HTTP/1.1. For an example attack refer to the linked GitHub Advisory. Users are only affected if all of this is true: `HTTP2MultiplexCodec` or `Http2FrameCodec` is used, `Http2StreamFrameToHttpObjectCodec` is used to convert to HTTP/1.1 objects, and these HTTP/1.1 objects are forwarded to another remote peer. This has been patched in 4.1.60.Final As a workaround, the user can do the validation by themselves by implementing a custom `ChannelInboundHandler` that is put in the `ChannelPipeline` behind `Http2StreamFrameToHttpObjectCodec`.

05

also known as (6)

Other names and identifiers for this entity.

06

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

08

references (310)

External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.

scry

Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.

Free scan