CVE-2026-28367
Redhat Jboss Enterprise Application Platform 7.0.0 … 8.0.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-28367 is a high-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability in Redhat Jboss Enterprise Application Platform. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 50% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2026-28367 is a vulnerability in Undertow, a Java web server used in products like Red Hat JBoss. The flaw allows a remote attacker to exploit it by sending `\r\r\r` as a header block terminator, enabling HTTP request smuggling when paired with certain proxy servers, such as older versions of Apache Traffic Server and Google Cloud Classic Application Load Balancer. This issue, published on 2026-03-27, is classified under CWE-444 (Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests) with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.7 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N).
A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability under high attack complexity conditions to perform request smuggling attacks. By manipulating header termination, the attacker can interfere with proxy request parsing, potentially leading to unauthorized access to internal services or manipulation of web requests, resulting in high impacts to confidentiality and integrity across the security scope.
Red Hat has issued a security advisory at https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-28367 and a corresponding Bugzilla entry at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2443260, which provide details on affected versions and recommended mitigations or patches for impacted products.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-16694
Vulnerability Data
A flaw was found in Undertow. A remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending `\r\r\r` as a header block terminator. This can be used for request smuggling with certain proxy servers, such as older versions of Apache Traffic Server…
more
and Google Cloud Classic Application Load Balancer, potentially leading to unauthorized access or manipulation of web requests.
- 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.