Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-10050 is a high-severity Improper Handling of Alternate Encoding (CWE-173) vulnerability in Eclipse Jetty. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027); ranked at the 41th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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 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-2026-52656
Vulnerability Data
In Eclipse Jetty, the Digest authentication server-side component uses ISO-8859-1 to encode the password as bytes. This was done because the initial specification for HTTP did not specify explicitly a charset, and it was assumed to be ISO-8859-1 for historical…
more
reasons. If the password contains characters that cannot be represented in ISO-8859-1, they are silently replaced by `?`. This happens with passwords that contain Chinese, Cyrillic or Greek characters, for example: `αβ123` converts to `??123`. An attacker can send a request with a digest `Authorization` header crafted with a password made of only `?` characters; the server would match any password of the same length that contains non-ISO-8859-1 characters. Recent HTTP Digest [RFC-7616](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7616) supports a `charset` parameters that defaults to UTF-8 that allows for correct encoding/decoding of passwords.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.3V1.3.10V1.1.2V1.2.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages directly uncovers incorrect implementations of required authentication algorithms.
Input validation that checks validity of supplied data directly stops alternate encodings from bypassing intended filters or logic.
Requiring documented development processes, standards, and tools reduces the chance that an established authentication algorithm is coded incorrectly.
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 proper input validation and canonicalization to handle alternate encodings.
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.
Cryptography control addresses proper use of authentication algorithms but is broader than authentication alone.
Secure development lifecycle includes verification steps that can catch incorrect authentication implementations.
Application security requirements can mandate canonicalization and encoding validation to prevent alternate-encoding bypasses.
Secure architecture principles include input normalization and canonicalization controls that mitigate encoding-related weaknesses.
Secure coding standards explicitly require proper handling of alternate encodings and canonical forms to avoid injection or bypass flaws.
Security testing can detect encoding-handling defects but does not itself implement the preventive coding controls.