CVE-2024-23829
Aiohttp ≤ 3.9.2
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2024-23829 is a medium-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability in Aiohttp Aiohttp. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 39% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-7 (Boundary Protection) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-0002
Vulnerability Data
aiohttp is an asynchronous HTTP client/server framework for asyncio and Python. Security-sensitive parts of the Python HTTP parser retained minor differences in allowable character sets, that must trigger error handling to robustly match frame boundaries of proxies in order to…
more
protect against injection of additional requests. Additionally, validation could trigger exceptions that were not handled consistently with processing of other malformed input. Being more lenient than internet standards require could, depending on deployment environment, assist in request smuggling. The unhandled exception could cause excessive resource consumption on the application server and/or its logging facilities. This vulnerability exists due to an incomplete fix for CVE-2023-47627. Version 3.9.2 fixes this vulnerability.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V4.1.3V4.2.4V1.5.3V4.1.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Boundary protection at external interfaces can enforce consistent HTTP request/response parsing rules between intermediaries and endpoints.
Validating HTTP inputs at the intermediary prevents malformed messages from being interpreted inconsistently downstream.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Configuration management can enforce uniform HTTP parsing rules across intermediaries, directly mitigating inconsistent interpretation.
Network monitoring can detect smuggling attempts via anomalous HTTP traffic or logs, while eliminating the inconsistency directly aids detection of such events.
Network protections can enforce consistent HTTP proxy/firewall behavior to block smuggling, and removing the weakness helps prevent unauthorized access via request smuggling.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect HTTP request smuggling vulnerabilities in intermediary components.
Network security controls can enforce consistent HTTP parsing and proxy behavior that mitigates request smuggling.
Secure network services include hardening proxies and gateways against inconsistent HTTP interpretation.
Secure SDLC practices require threat modeling and testing for HTTP parsing inconsistencies in intermediaries.
Application security requirements can mandate strict HTTP message validation and canonicalization.
Secure architecture principles include consistent protocol handling and defense-in-depth for proxies.