CVE-2024-42487
Cilium 1.15.0 – 1.15.8
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2024-42487 is a medium-severity HTTP Request/Response Splitting (CWE-113) vulnerability in Cilium Cilium. Its CVSS base score is 4.0 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 42th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) 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-2024-2632
Vulnerability Data
Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. In the 1.15 branch prior to 1.15.8 and the 1.16 branch prior to 1.16.1, Gateway API HTTPRoutes and GRPCRoutes do not follow the match precedence specified in the…
more
Gateway API specification. In particular, request headers are matched before request methods, when the specification describes that the request methods must be respected before headers are matched. This could result in unexpected behaviour with security This issue is fixed in Cilium v1.15.8 and v1.16.1. There is no workaround for this issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.4.2V4.1.3V1.3.6V4.2.3
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover cases where two products interpret the same inputs or state transitions differently.
Input validation stops unneutralized CR/LF characters from being accepted and later emitted in HTTP headers.
Output filtering can neutralize CRLF sequences before they reach HTTP response headers.
Applying security engineering principles during design can require unambiguous protocol and data-format specifications that eliminate divergent interpretations between products.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input sanitization and header handling that prevent CRLF injection.
Correlating logs from multiple products can surface discrepancies caused by interpretation conflicts.
Runtime monitoring of software behavior can detect adverse outcomes stemming from differing interpretations.
Supplier risk assessments can identify products whose differing interpretations create systemic exposure.
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 in development and acceptance can detect CRLF injection flaws before deployment.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevents CRLF injection into HTTP headers.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including HTTP header manipulation.
Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of header-splitting vulnerabilities through proper component isolation.
Secure coding standards require neutralization of CRLF sequences before inclusion in HTTP headers.
Logging of HTTP traffic can record header-splitting attempts, aiding detection and forensics.