Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-13763

Amazon Application Load Balancer

Published
29 June 2026
Modified
01 July 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 7.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/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 0.0047 39th percentile
Risk Priority 43 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-13763 is a high-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability in Amazon Application Load Balancer. Its CVSS base score is 7.9 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 39th 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.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Inconsistent interpretation of HTTP/2 requests in AWS Application Load Balancer with AWS WAF enabled might allow remote actors to bypass AWS WAF managed rule body inspection via crafted HTTP/2 requests that fragment the request body across frames so that only…

more

a partial body is inspected. This issue only impacts HTTP/2 ALB target groups. To remediate this issue, customers should enable the "Inspect after sufficient data" target group configuration associated to an ALB load balancer. Refer to: ( https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/latest/application/edit-target-group-attributes.html#waf-http2-inspection )

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

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-2026-13762Same vendor: Amazon
CVE-2024-12746Same vendor: Amazon
CVE-2023-51651Same vendor: Amazon
CVE-2024-12745Same vendor: Amazon
CVE-2024-12744Same vendor: Amazon
CVE-2026-6968Same vendor: Amazon
CVE-2024-52313Same vendor: Amazon
CVE-2026-40562Shared CWE-444
CVE-2026-42581Shared CWE-444
CVE-2025-55018Shared CWE-444

Affected Assets

amazon
application load balancer
all versions

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)
  • V4.1.3
  • V4.2.4
  • V1.5.3
  • V4.1.1

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.

PR.PS-01 mostly match
prevents

Configuration management can enforce uniform HTTP parsing rules across intermediaries, directly mitigating inconsistent interpretation.

DE.CM-01 partial match
prevents

Network monitoring can detect smuggling attempts via anomalous HTTP traffic or logs, while eliminating the inconsistency directly aids detection of such events.

PR.IR-01 partial match
prevents

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.

finds

Security testing can detect HTTP request smuggling vulnerabilities in intermediary components.

degrades

Network security controls can enforce consistent HTTP parsing and proxy behavior that mitigates request smuggling.

degrades

Secure network services include hardening proxies and gateways against inconsistent HTTP interpretation.

prevents

Secure SDLC practices require threat modeling and testing for HTTP parsing inconsistencies in intermediaries.

prevents

Application security requirements can mandate strict HTTP message validation and canonicalization.

prevents

Secure architecture principles include consistent protocol handling and defense-in-depth for proxies.

References