CVE-2026-43968
Ninenines Cowlib 2.6.0 – 2.16.1
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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-2026-43968 is a medium-severity CRLF Injection (CWE-93) vulnerability in Ninenines Cowlib. Its CVSS base score is 6.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 18th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-29192
Vulnerability Data
Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection') vulnerability in ninenines cowlib allows SSE event splitting and injection via unvalidated field values. cow_sse:event/1 in cowlib guards the id and event fields against \n but not against bare \r, and the internal…
more
prefix_lines/2 function used for data and comment fields splits only on \n. Because the SSE specification requires decoders to treat \r\n, \r, and \n as equivalent line terminators, an attacker who controls any of these fields can inject additional SSE lines and forge a complete event with an arbitrary event type and data payload on the receiving end. In typical deployments where browser EventSource clients or other SSE consumers dispatch on event.type and render event.data, this enables event splitting, client-side logic manipulation, and stored-XSS-equivalent behaviour when event data is inserted into the DOM. This issue affects cowlib from 2.6.0 before 2.16.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V4.2.4
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly stops untrusted data containing CRLF sequences from reaching the component that treats CRLF as a delimiter.
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.