CVE-2026-71324
Traefik ≤ 2.11.53
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-71324 is a high-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability in Traefik Traefik. Its CVSS base score is 7.0 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 42th 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 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-2026-54288
Vulnerability Data
Traefik is an open source HTTP reverse proxy and load balancer. Prior to 2.11.53, 3.6.24, and 3.7.9, Traefik's default HTTP reverse proxy forwards a plain HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 CONNECT request and its body to an HTTP/1.1 upstream through a shared…
more
net/http.Transport. When the upstream answers the CONNECT with a keep-alive non-2xx response and does not drain the body, Traefik returns the desynchronized backend socket to its shared pool and reuses it for other clients. An unauthenticated attacker can use this behavior to make a different client read the attacker's smuggled response, which can include authenticated or private content from another request. The ForwardAuth middleware with forwardBody true and preserveRequestMethod true can re-issue a CONNECT with the buffered body attached, exposing the auth-client pool to the same desynchronization. This issue is fixed in 2.11.53, 3.6.24, and 3.7.9.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
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.
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.
Configuration management can enforce uniform HTTP parsing rules across intermediaries, directly mitigating inconsistent interpretation.
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.
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.
Secure coding standards can require strict HTTP header and request validation to prevent smuggling.