Cyber Resilience

CWE · MITRE source

CWE-444Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')

Abstraction: Base · CVEs in our corpus: 388

The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.

HTTP requests or responses ("messages") can be malformed or unexpected in ways that cause web servers or clients to interpret the messages in different ways than intermediary HTTP agents such as load balancers, reverse proxies, web caching proxies, application firewalls, etc. For example, an adversary may be able to add duplicate or different header fields that a client or server might interpret as one set of messages, whereas the intermediary might interpret the same sequence of bytes as a different set of messages. For example, discrepancies can arise in how to handle duplicate headers like two Transfer-encoding (TE) or two Content-length (CL), or the malicious HTTP message will have different headers for TE and CL. The inconsistent parsing and interpretation of messages can allow the adversary to "smuggle" a message to the client/server without the intermediary being aware of it. This weakness is usually the result of the usage of outdated or incompatible HTTP protocol versions in the HTTP agents.

Last updated: 20 August 2026 20:22 UTC

Cumulative inbound coverage

How completely the frameworks we cross-walk collectively cover this — the verdict is the strongest single mapping (overlapping partials are not summed); breadth shows the corroboration behind it.

Collective: partial · 2 mapping(s) from 1 framework(s): CAPEC 2 (partial)

See the full cumulative-coverage rollup →

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

This weakness contributes to A06:2025 Insecure Design.

Control responseHuman-reviewed

Answering this weakness across the control lifecycle, from our framework cross-walks.

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53 / CSF Protect)
  • PR.IR-01
  • SC-7 Boundary Protection
  • SI-10 Information Input Validation
  • PR.PS-01
Detect
Catch it (CSF Detect / Respond)
  • DE.CM-01
Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V4.1.3
  • V4.2.4
  • V1.5.3
  • V4.1.1

NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (0)AI-assisted

Control Title Family Why it addresses this CWE
No NIST controls proposed yet.

Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority

CVE Risk CVSS EPSS Published
CVE-2022-22536 KEV 10.010.00.97952022-02-09
CVE-2023-25690 9.99.80.84512023-03-07
CVE-2021-30180 9.69.80.60432021-06-01
CVE-2019-15605 9.59.80.57132020-02-07
CVE-2023-41265 KEV 9.49.60.84472023-08-29
CVE-2023-48365 KEV 9.49.60.24682023-11-15
CVE-2025-55315 9.49.90.65842025-10-14
CVE-2022-22720 8.89.80.28192022-03-14
CVE-2017-7658 8.69.80.20992018-06-26
CVE-2025-61884 KEV 8.57.50.97792025-10-12
CVE-2017-7657 8.49.80.16152018-06-26
CVE-2020-9490 8.47.50.89742020-08-07
CVE-2015-5739 8.29.80.09632017-10-18
CVE-2020-11993 8.17.50.58722020-08-07
CVE-2022-29361 8.19.80.08072022-05-25
CVE-2024-41110 8.19.90.16502024-07-24
CVE-2019-20445 7.99.10.13472020-01-29
CVE-2020-10108 7.99.80.03972020-03-12
CVE-2021-45468 7.99.80.03992022-01-14
CVE-2015-5740 7.89.80.03662017-10-18
CVE-2016-10711 7.89.80.02842018-01-29
CVE-2020-10109 7.89.80.03292020-03-12
CVE-2019-17559 7.89.80.03172020-03-23
CVE-2019-17565 7.89.80.03172020-03-23
CVE-2020-1944 7.89.80.02732020-03-23