CVE-2025-65114
Apache Traffic Server 9.0.0 – 9.2.13
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-65114 is a high-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability in Apache Traffic Server. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 35th 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 SC-7 (Boundary Protection) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-65114 is a vulnerability in Apache Traffic Server that enables HTTP request smuggling when chunked messages are malformed. The issue affects Apache Traffic Server versions from 9.0.0 through 9.2.12 and from 10.0.0 through 10.1.1. It is classified under CWE-444 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N), highlighting its potential for network-based integrity violations.
Unauthenticated remote attackers with network access to a vulnerable Apache Traffic Server instance can exploit this flaw with low complexity and no user interaction required. By sending specially crafted malformed chunked requests, attackers can perform HTTP request smuggling, achieving high integrity impact such as interfering with request processing or routing.
The Apache advisory, detailed in the mailing list thread at https://lists.apache.org/thread/2s11roxlv1j8ph6q52rqo1klvl01n14q, recommends upgrading to remedied versions 9.2.13 or 10.1.2 to mitigate the vulnerability.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-209190
Vulnerability Data
Apache Traffic Server allows request smuggling if chunked messages are malformed. This issue affects Apache Traffic Server: from 9.0.0 through 9.2.12, from 10.0.0 through 10.1.1. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 9.2.13 or 10.1.2, which fix the issue.
- 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.