CVE-2026-47072
Benoitc Hackney 2.0.0 – 4.0.1
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI: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-2026-47072 is a medium-severity CRLF Injection (CWE-93) vulnerability in Benoitc Hackney. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 43th 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) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-31690
Vulnerability Data
Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection') vulnerability in benoitc hackney allows HTTP Request/Response Splitting. The WebSocket upgrade code in src/hackney_ws.erl copies the host, path, headers (ExtraHeaders), and protocols options from the caller-supplied opts map into the internal #ws_data{} record…
more
in init/1 and then splices them verbatim into the raw HTTP/1.1 upgrade request by binary concatenation in do_handshake/1. No CRLF or NUL stripping is performed at any of these four injection sites. An attacker who controls any of these options — for example by forwarding URL components or header values from untrusted input into hackney_ws:start_link/1 — can inject arbitrary HTTP headers into the outbound WebSocket upgrade request, leading to header injection, credential spoofing toward the upstream server, log and cache poisoning, or request smuggling via intermediary proxies. This issue affects hackney: from 2.0.0 before 4.0.1.
- 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.