Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-51501

Published
04 November 2024
Modified
15 April 2026
CVSS Score v4 10.0
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
EPSS Score 0.0056 44th percentile
Risk Priority 47 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2024-51501 is a critical-severity CRLF Injection (CWE-93) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 10.0 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 44th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Refit is an automatic type-safe REST library for .NET Core, Xamarin and .NET The various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. The way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the `HttpHeaders.TryAddWithoutValidation`…

more

method. This method does not check for CRLF characters in the header value. This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. If an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit and not in Refit itself. This issue has been addressed in release versions 7.2.22 and 8.0.0 and all users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1659 Content Injection Initial Access
Adversaries may gain access and continuously communicate with victims by injecting malicious content into systems through online network traffic.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-43968Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-34458Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-12357Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-20113Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-39394Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-44217Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-77634Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-6351Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-45070Shared CWE-93
CVE-2026-35504Shared CWE-93

Affected Assets

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V4.2.4

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Input validation directly stops untrusted data containing CRLF sequences from reaching the component that treats CRLF as a delimiter.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require input neutralization and validation to block CRLF injection.

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.

finds

Security testing can detect CRLF flaws but does not itself implement the neutralization.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevents CRLF injection.

prevents

Application security requirements include rules for neutralizing special characters such as CRLF in inputs.

prevents

Secure architecture principles encourage safe handling of untrusted data but do not prescribe specific CRLF controls.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly require neutralization of CRLF sequences, fully addressing this weakness.

References