CVE-2026-28369
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-2026-28369 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 at the 49th 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-2026-28369 is a vulnerability in Undertow, a Java-based web server framework. The flaw occurs when Undertow processes an HTTP request where the first header line begins with one or more leading spaces; it incorrectly strips these spaces, violating HTTP standards. This misprocessing enables HTTP request smuggling, as documented under CWE-444. The vulnerability was published on 2026-03-27 and carries 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 attacker requires no privileges or user interaction but must achieve a high-complexity attack over the network to exploit it. Successful smuggling allows the attacker to bypass frontend security controls, access restricted information behind proxies or load balancers, or poison web caches. This can result in unauthorized actions or sensitive data exposure by interleaving malicious requests with legitimate ones.
Red Hat advisories detail mitigation strategies for affected products. Security practitioners should consult the official advisory at https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-28369 and the associated Bugzilla tracker at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2443262 for patch information, version-specific impacts, and remediation guidance.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-16698
Vulnerability Data
A flaw was found in Undertow. When Undertow receives an HTTP request where the first header line starts with one or more spaces, it incorrectly processes the request by stripping these leading spaces. This behavior, which violates HTTP standards, can…
more
be exploited by a remote attacker to perform request smuggling. Request smuggling allows an attacker to bypass security mechanisms, access restricted information, or manipulate web caches, potentially leading to unauthorized actions or data exposure.
- 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.