CVE-2026-48710

mediumpriority · act · 90OT risk · criticalKEV · exploitedEPSS 0.071 · 94 %ileexploit · PoCEUNLRUUS
grimoire priorityP0 · Act now
Exploitable?
Yes · in the wild
CISA KEV · 5 exploits · PoC
Likely / severe?
7.06% (94th) EPSS
CVSS 6.5 · medium
Is it mine?
16 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
6 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · fstec_bdu · osv

added 2026-09-02remediate by 2026-09-16

required action Apply mitigations in accordance with vendor instructions, ensuring compliance with CISA’s BOD 26-04 Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk (see URL in Notes) guidance and CISA’s “Forensics Triage Requirements” (see URL in Notes). Follow applicable BOD 26-04 guidance for cloud services or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Stakeholders are responsible for evaluating each asset's internet exposure and ensuring adherence to BOD 26-04 patching guidelines.

EPSS · scored 2026-10-22

Kludex Starlette HTTP Request/Response Smuggling Vulnerability

Starlette is a lightweight ASGI framework/toolkit. Prior to version 1.0.1, the HTTP `Host` request header was not validated before being used to reconstruct `request.url`. Because the routing algorithm relies on the raw HTTP path while `request.url` is rebuilt from the `Host` header, a malformed header could make `request.url.path` differ from the path that was actually requested. Middleware and endpoints that apply security restrictions based on `request.url` (rather than the raw `scope` path) could therefore be bypassed. Users should upgrade to a version greater than or equal to version 1.0.1, which validates the `Host` header against the grammar of RFC 9112 §3.2 / RFC 3986 §3.2.2 when constructing `request.url` and falls back to `scope["server"]` for malformed values.

01

cvss

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

6.5
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode

v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nprimary · NVD / NIST USexploitability 3.9 · impact 2.5
v3.16.5mediumAV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · FSTEC (BDU) RU
v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · ENISA EU
v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · security-advisories@github.comexploitability 3.9 · impact 2.5
v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondaryexploitability 3.9 · impact 2.5
v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · OSV
v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N/E:Hsecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
v3.16.5mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:Nsecondary · NCSC-NL NL
02

ssvc

A stakeholder decision — act, attend, or track — from exploitation and impact.

Exploitation: active · Automatable: yes · Technical Impact: partialcoordinatorcisa_ssvcUS
03

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

04

exploits (5)

Public proof-of-concept and weaponised exploit code.

05

affected products (16)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

06

advisories (3)

Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.

  • NCSC-2026-0171Kwetsbaarheid verholpen in StarletteNL2026-05-29csaf · ncsc_nlNL

    Er is een kwetsbaarheid verholpen in Starlette, een Python-library voor het ontwikkelen van webservices. Starlette wordt door verschillende producten gebruikt, waaronder FastAPI.

  • GHSA-86qp-5c8j-p5mrStarlette has missing Host header validation that poisons request.url.path, bypassing path-based security checks2026-06-04ghsa · osvUS

    ### Summary In affected versions, the HTTP `Host` request header was not validated before being used to reconstruct `request.url`. Because the routing algorithm relies on the raw HTTP path while `request.url` is rebuilt from the `Host` header, a malformed header could make `request.url.path` differ from the path that was actually requested. Middleware and endpoints that apply security restrictions based on `request.url` (rather than the raw `scope` path) could therefore be bypassed. ### Details When a client requests `http://example.com/foo`, it sends: ```http GET /foo HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com ``` Affected versions reconstructed the URL by concatenating `http://{host}{path}` and re-parsing the result. The `Host` value is only valid as a `uri-host [ ":" port ]` per [RFC 9112 §3.2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112.html#section-3.2-6), where `uri-host` follows the restricted `host` grammar of [RFC 3986 §3.2.2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#section-3.2.2). When it contains characters outside that grammar - notably `/`, `?`, or `#` - those characters move the path/query/fragment boundaries during re-parsing, so the parsed `request.url.path` no longer matches the path the server actually received. For example: ```http GET /foo HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com/abc?bar= ``` reconstructs to `http://example.com/abc?bar=/foo`, whose parsed `path` is `/abc` - even though routing used the real path `/foo`. The router still dispatches to `/foo` and the endpoint executes, but any middleware or code that reads `request.url.path` sees `/abc`, so path-based authorization checks can be bypassed. ### Impact Any application running an affected version that relies on `request.url` (or `request.url.path`) for security-sensitive decisions is affected. The most common case is middleware that gates access to certain path prefixes based on `request.url.path`. Deployments fronted by a proxy or load balancer are mitigated only if that proxy rejects or normalizes the malformed `Host` header before forwarding and the application does not trust attacker-controlled host headers (e.g. `X-Forwarded-Host`) elsewhere. ### Mitigation Upgrade to a patched version, which validates the `Host` header against the grammar of [RFC 9112 §3.2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112.html#section-3.2-6) / [RFC 3986 §3.2.2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#section-3.2.2) when constructing `request.url` and falls back to `scope["server"]` for malformed values.

  • PYSEC-2026-161BadHost: Missing Host header validation poisons request.url.path, bypassing path-based security checks2026-05-22vendor · osvUS

    Starlette reconstructs the requested URL based on the HTTP Host request header and requested path, but does not perform any validation of the Host header value. This allows attackers to inject paths into the host part, prepending the actual path. However, routing in Starlette is based on the actual request path. This inconsistent interpretation of HTTP requests may lead to issues such as authentication bypass when the authentication depends on the reconstructed URL’s path.

07

also known as (8)

Other names and identifiers for this entity.

08

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

09

references (44)

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