CVE-2026-48743
Envoyproxy Envoy 1.35.0 – 1.35.13
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-48743 is a high-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability in Envoyproxy Envoy. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 12th 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 SC-7 (Boundary Protection) and 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-2026-39822
Vulnerability Data
Envoy is an open source edge and service proxy designed for cloud-native applications. Prior to 1.35.11, 1.36.7, 1.37.3, and 1.38.1, Envoy can translate a downstream HTTP/3 request that is complete at the transport layer (HEADERS with FIN / headers-only close)…
more
but still carries a nonzero Content-Length into a complete upstream HTTP/1 request with unresolved body debt. In an HTTP/1 upstream deployment where the origin replies before reading the declared body and keeps the connection reusable, the beginning of the next Envoy-generated upstream request can be consumed as the first request's body. The remaining bytes are then parsed by the origin as a new HTTP/1 request. This was reproduced as a route-bypass/desync: direct /pwn was denied by Envoy, but the second downstream H3 stream received the response for backend-parsed GET /pwn HTTP/1.1. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.35.11, 1.36.7, 1.37.3, and 1.38.1.
- 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.