🚨 CVE-2026-56866
When http.Transport sends an HTTP/1 CONNECT request with a non-empty Request.Body, it writes the body directly to the connection without framing after the request headers. If the server rejects the CONNECT request with a non-2xx keep-alive response, Transport returns the connection to the idle pool. Because CONNECT requests do not have a request body, the server may interpret the trailing body bytes as a subsequent pipelined HTTP/1.1 request on the connection, leaving the pooled connection desynchronized and causing the next caller that reuses it to read the response to the injected request. In reverse proxies (including httputil.ReverseProxy) that forward CONNECT requests through a shared Transport, this can lead to cross-user response poisoning.
🎖@cveNotify
When http.Transport sends an HTTP/1 CONNECT request with a non-empty Request.Body, it writes the body directly to the connection without framing after the request headers. If the server rejects the CONNECT request with a non-2xx keep-alive response, Transport returns the connection to the idle pool. Because CONNECT requests do not have a request body, the server may interpret the trailing body bytes as a subsequent pipelined HTTP/1.1 request on the connection, leaving the pooled connection desynchronized and causing the next caller that reuses it to read the response to the injected request. In reverse proxies (including httputil.ReverseProxy) that forward CONNECT requests through a shared Transport, this can lead to cross-user response poisoning.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-77900
Missing authentication for critical function in Azure App Service allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Missing authentication for critical function in Azure App Service allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-78659
When "Trailer" headers are sent by a client, the HTTP server internally uses the header values to populate the Request.Trailer map passed to the server handler. Because Request.Trailer is a map, each entry incurs memory overhead. For HTTP/2 servers, a malicious client can exploit this by sending a "Trailer" header that declares a large number of fields, causing the server to allocate a disproportionate amount of memory while bypassing Server.MaxHeaderValueCount and Server.MaxHeaderBytes limits. This exploit is not applicable for HTTP/1 servers, which do not support multiplexing a large number of requests over one TCP connection, and whose Server.MaxHeaderBytes are calculated differently.
🎖@cveNotify
When "Trailer" headers are sent by a client, the HTTP server internally uses the header values to populate the Request.Trailer map passed to the server handler. Because Request.Trailer is a map, each entry incurs memory overhead. For HTTP/2 servers, a malicious client can exploit this by sending a "Trailer" header that declares a large number of fields, causing the server to allocate a disproportionate amount of memory while bypassing Server.MaxHeaderValueCount and Server.MaxHeaderBytes limits. This exploit is not applicable for HTTP/1 servers, which do not support multiplexing a large number of requests over one TCP connection, and whose Server.MaxHeaderBytes are calculated differently.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-78660
Historically, we have been rather lax about malformed framing-related headers in our HTTP/2 implementation, as they cannot interfere with HTTP/2 framing. However, this makes it possible for our HTTP/2 implementation to forward responses containing such headers to an HTTP/1 client when acting as a reverse proxy. If the HTTP/1 client also does not behave strictly enough, this can result in response smuggling.
🎖@cveNotify
Historically, we have been rather lax about malformed framing-related headers in our HTTP/2 implementation, as they cannot interfere with HTTP/2 framing. However, this makes it possible for our HTTP/2 implementation to forward responses containing such headers to an HTTP/1 client when acting as a reverse proxy. If the HTTP/1 client also does not behave strictly enough, this can result in response smuggling.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-78663
The HTTP/2 server can refund connection-level flow control twice for the same data: Once when a client resets a stream (refunding data for any sent-but-unread portion of the stream), and again when a request handler reads the buffered data. A malicious client can exploit this to bypass the configured connection-level flow control limit (MaxReceiveBufferPerConnection). Total buffered data is still limited by the concurrent stream limit and stream-level flow control.
🎖@cveNotify
The HTTP/2 server can refund connection-level flow control twice for the same data: Once when a client resets a stream (refunding data for any sent-but-unread portion of the stream), and again when a request handler reads the buffered data. A malicious client can exploit this to bypass the configured connection-level flow control limit (MaxReceiveBufferPerConnection). Total buffered data is still limited by the concurrent stream limit and stream-level flow control.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-78667
When parsing a Range header containing a large number of small ranges, FileServer(FS), ServeContent, and ServeFile(FS) can consume an excessive amount of CPU.
🎖@cveNotify
When parsing a Range header containing a large number of small ranges, FileServer(FS), ServeContent, and ServeFile(FS) can consume an excessive amount of CPU.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-78669
A malicious HTTP/2 peer can cause excessive CPU consumption in the client or server by opening a large number of streams and then sending many small SETTINGS frames containing SETTINGS_INITIAL_WINDOW_SIZE values.
🎖@cveNotify
A malicious HTTP/2 peer can cause excessive CPU consumption in the client or server by opening a large number of streams and then sending many small SETTINGS frames containing SETTINGS_INITIAL_WINDOW_SIZE values.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-83943
Exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor in Azure API Center allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor in Azure API Center allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-83947
Missing authorization in Azure Event Grid allows an authorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Missing authorization in Azure Event Grid allows an authorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-88131
Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Dataverse allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Dataverse allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-94439
When an HTTP server handler sends a 2xx response to an HTTP/1 CONNECT request and returns without hijacking the connection, the server improperly continues to read and serve requests from the connection. Since a 2xx response to an HTTP/1 CONNECT converts the connection into a tunnel, the server should not treat the connection as continuing to contain HTTP. The impact of this misbehavior is mostly limited to potential request smuggling, where an intermediate proxy considers the data on the connection to be tunneled and the server considers it to be HTTP.
🎖@cveNotify
When an HTTP server handler sends a 2xx response to an HTTP/1 CONNECT request and returns without hijacking the connection, the server improperly continues to read and serve requests from the connection. Since a 2xx response to an HTTP/1 CONNECT converts the connection into a tunnel, the server should not treat the connection as continuing to contain HTTP. The impact of this misbehavior is mostly limited to potential request smuggling, where an intermediate proxy considers the data on the connection to be tunneled and the server considers it to be HTTP.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-94440
Parsing a multipart form can bypass memory limits and read an arbitrarily long line into memory when the remaining limit at the start of a part is less than 400 bytes.
🎖@cveNotify
Parsing a multipart form can bypass memory limits and read an arbitrarily long line into memory when the remaining limit at the start of a part is less than 400 bytes.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-94444
Previously, a user operating inside of a malicious Go project that defines a bogus golang.org/fips140 and operates a malicious GOMODPROXY the user chooses to connect to can serve an arbitrary module in its place. We now unpack the trusted ziphash for the bundled golang.org/fips140 module and construct its entry in the GOMODCACHE such that it can be verified by the toolchain.
🎖@cveNotify
Previously, a user operating inside of a malicious Go project that defines a bogus golang.org/fips140 and operates a malicious GOMODPROXY the user chooses to connect to can serve an arbitrary module in its place. We now unpack the trusted ziphash for the bundled golang.org/fips140 module and construct its entry in the GOMODCACHE such that it can be verified by the toolchain.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-94447
Previously, a user operating inside of a malicious Go project that defines a bogus golang.org/toolchain go.sum entry and operates a malicious GOMODPROXY the user chooses to use can bypass the intended checksum. We now ensure that golang.org/toolchain always goes to the network for the canonical checksum.
🎖@cveNotify
Previously, a user operating inside of a malicious Go project that defines a bogus golang.org/toolchain go.sum entry and operates a malicious GOMODPROXY the user chooses to use can bypass the intended checksum. We now ensure that golang.org/toolchain always goes to the network for the canonical checksum.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-94448
When a JavaScript template literal contains consecutive expressions, the context tracking state was not properly reset upon entering a new expression. We now ensure that template-literal expression entries correctly reset context variables so all subsequent regular expression literals are accurately recognized and escaped.
🎖@cveNotify
When a JavaScript template literal contains consecutive expressions, the context tracking state was not properly reset upon entering a new expression. We now ensure that template-literal expression entries correctly reset context variables so all subsequent regular expression literals are accurately recognized and escaped.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-94510
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-96207
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-97030
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
🎖@cveNotify
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-97031
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
🎖@cveNotify
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-97032
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
🎖@cveNotify
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2024-1394
A memory leak flaw was found in Golang in the RSA encrypting/decrypting code, which might lead to a resource exhaustion vulnerability using attacker-controlled inputs. The memory leak happens in github.com/golang-fips/openssl/openssl/rsa.go#L113. The objects leaked are pkey and ctx. That function uses named return parameters to free pkey and ctx if there is an error initializing the context or setting the different properties. All return statements related to error cases follow the "return nil, nil, fail(...)" pattern, meaning that pkey and ctx will be nil inside the deferred function that should free them.
🎖@cveNotify
A memory leak flaw was found in Golang in the RSA encrypting/decrypting code, which might lead to a resource exhaustion vulnerability using attacker-controlled inputs. The memory leak happens in github.com/golang-fips/openssl/openssl/rsa.go#L113. The objects leaked are pkey and ctx. That function uses named return parameters to free pkey and ctx if there is an error initializing the context or setting the different properties. All return statements related to error cases follow the "return nil, nil, fail(...)" pattern, meaning that pkey and ctx will be nil inside the deferred function that should free them.
🎖@cveNotify