CVE-2026-73495
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-73495 is a high-severity HTTP Request/Response Smuggling (CWE-444) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 21th 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-2026-57635
Vulnerability Data
blaze is a Scala library for building asynchronous pipelines, with a focus on network IO. Prior to 0.23.18 and 1.0.0-M42, blaze-server can merge HTTP/1.1 chunked-body trailer fields into Request.headers. Because trailer fields are attacker-controlled, an unauthenticated remote client can inject…
more
arbitrary header names and values, including X-Forwarded-For and internal authorization headers, that a fronting proxy sanitized from the request-header section, bypassing header-based trust decisions in the application. Any http4s application using BlazeServerBuilder over HTTP/1.1 whose routes or middleware trust proxy-set headers, including X-Forwarded-For, X-Real-IP, and X-Forwarded-Host, is affected. If a fronting proxy strips or normalizes those headers but forwards chunked bodies with trailers intact, an attacker can spoof client IP for allow-lists, rate limits, or auditing, forge the https scheme, or inject internal authorization headers. A promoted Connection: close trailer is also honored, allowing attacker-controlled termination of pooled backend connections. This issue is fixed in versions 0.23.18 and 1.0.0-M42.
- 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.