CVE-2026-48595
Elixir-Tesla Tesla 1.4.0 – 1.18.3
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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-2026-48595 is a high-severity Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity (CWE-178) vulnerability in Elixir-Tesla Tesla. Its CVSS base score is 8.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Masquerading (T1036); ranked at the 42th 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 AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-34014
Vulnerability Data
Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity vulnerability in elixir-tesla tesla allows credential leakage to a third-party origin on cross-origin redirects. Tesla.Middleware.FollowRedirects strips security-sensitive headers on cross-origin redirects using a case-sensitive string comparison against a lowercase filter list (@filter_headers ["authorization", "host"]). HTTP…
more
header names are case-insensitive per RFC 7230, but Tesla preserves header keys verbatim as supplied by the caller without normalizing case. A header set as {"Authorization", "Bearer …"} (the RFC 7235 canonical casing used by virtually all HTTP libraries and documentation) does not match the lowercase filter entry and is forwarded to the redirect destination. An attacker who can control or influence a Location: response seen by the client (via their own endpoint, a redirect-open upstream, or a compromised origin) receives the bearer token or other Authorization material on the cross-origin request. This issue affects tesla: from 1.4.0 before 1.18.3.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Applying access control decisions to each request depends on accurate property determination that accounts for case differences.
Correct enforcement of authorizations for resource access structurally requires consistent case-sensitive handling of identifiers to avoid incorrect decisions.
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 can catch and prevent case-sensitivity flaws during code review or testing, but fixing one CWE achieves negligible coverage of the broad control.
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.
Secure SDLC practices should include case-sensitivity requirements in design and coding standards.
Application security requirements must specify case handling for identifiers and paths.
Architecture principles should enforce canonical, case-aware resource naming.
Secure coding guidelines must mandate explicit case handling to prevent inconsistent lookups.
Access-control rules that ignore case can allow unintended resource access.
Authentication logic must treat identifiers consistently to avoid bypass via case differences.