CVE-2026-1467
Redhat Enterprise Linux 10.0 … 9.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-1467 is a medium-severity CRLF Injection (CWE-93) vulnerability in Redhat Enterprise Linux. Its CVSS base score is 5.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 24th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4809
Vulnerability Data
A flaw was found in libsoup, an HTTP client library. This vulnerability, known as CRLF (Carriage Return Line Feed) Injection, occurs when an HTTP proxy is configured and the library improperly handles URL-decoded input used to create the Host header.…
more
A remote attacker can exploit this by providing a specially crafted URL containing CRLF sequences, allowing them to inject additional HTTP headers or complete HTTP request bodies. This can lead to unintended or unauthorized HTTP requests being forwarded by the proxy, potentially impacting downstream services.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
CRLF injection in HTTP proxy handling directly enables remote exploitation of the application/library flaw to inject headers/requests.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation and sanitization of untrusted URL input before it is used to construct Host headers, blocking CRLF sequences at the source.
Mandates prompt application of vendor patches that correct the URL-decoding and header-construction flaw in libsoup.
Enforces policy on what header content and request bodies may flow through an HTTP proxy, limiting the impact of any injected CRLF content.
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 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.
Security testing can detect CRLF flaws but does not itself implement the neutralization.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevents CRLF injection.
Application security requirements include rules for neutralizing special characters such as CRLF in inputs.
Secure architecture principles encourage safe handling of untrusted data but do not prescribe specific CRLF controls.
Secure coding standards explicitly require neutralization of CRLF sequences, fully addressing this weakness.