CVE-2026-33805
Fastify\/Http-Proxy ≤ 11.4.4
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:L/SI:H/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-33805 is a critical-severity Improper Neutralization of HTTP Headers for Scripting Syntax (CWE-644) vulnerability in Fastify Fastify\/Http-Proxy. Its CVSS base score is 9.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 36th 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 SC-7 (Boundary Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-22877
Vulnerability Data
@fastify/reply-from v12.6.1 and earlier and @fastify/http-proxy v11.4.3 and earlier process the client's Connection header after the proxy has added its own headers via rewriteRequestHeaders. This allows attackers to retroactively strip proxy-added headers from upstream requests by listing them in the…
more
Connection header value. Any header added by the proxy for routing, access control, or security purposes can be selectively removed by a client. @fastify/http-proxy is also affected as it delegates to @fastify/reply-from. Upgrade to @fastify/reply-from v12.6.2 or @fastify/http-proxy v11.4.4 or later.
- 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
Input validation directly requires checking/neutralizing untrusted data such as HTTP headers before they reach browser components.
Boundary protection at external interfaces can enforce consistent HTTP request/response parsing rules between intermediaries and endpoints.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require proper output encoding and header sanitization to prevent scripting injection.
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 catches header-injection issues before release, covering most of the weakness.
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 development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevents header-injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for neutralizing untrusted data in HTTP headers.
Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe header-specific controls.