CVE-2026-28970

MEDIUMCVSS · not yet scored

Also known asGHSA-cq87-8r7h-962v (GitHub Security Advisories)

—
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorLow exploitation likelihood right now — keep watching.
  • No CVSS published and no exploitation signals yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: <0.1%CVSS v2: —Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability — apply it.

SwiftNIO: CRLF Injection in outbound HTTP request URI via NIOHTTPRequestHeadersValidator

Programs using swift-nio is vulnerable to HTTP request smuggling and HTTP response splitting attacks, caused by insufficient validation of outbound HTTP/1.1 request and response start line components.

This vulnerability affects all swift-nio versions from 2.0.0 to 2.99.0. It is fixed in 2.100.0 and later releases. This vulnerability is caused by the NIOHTTPRequestHeadersValidator and NIOHTTPResponseHeadersValidator channel handlers only validating header field names and values, while leaving the request URI, request method, and response reason phrase unvalidated. An attacker who can influence the content of these fields — for example by controlling a URL path or a custom HTTP method in a proxy application — can inject CR/LF sequences or other control characters into the HTTP start line. This allows construction of arbitrary additional HTTP requests or responses on the wire, a classic HTTP request smuggling or HTTP response splitting attack.

Exploiting this vulnerability requires the attacker to influence the content of outbound HTTP start line fields. In proxy applications that forward attacker-controlled URIs or methods, this is straightforward. For clients, a malicious server that triggers a redirect to a crafted URL could exploit the URI validation gap. For servers, any client that can cause the server to emit a crafted response reason phrase could exploit the response splitting gap. In vulnerable applications, where attacker controlled data is supplied to these fields, the attack is low-effort: injecting a CRLF sequence into a URI or reason phrase requires only a single crafted request. Successful exploitation can allow an attacker to smuggle additional HTTP requests past intermediaries or split HTTP responses, potentially bypassing WAFs or poisoning web caches. However, most applications are not vulnerable at all. The risk can be mitigated by ensuring that all user-controlled input is sanitized before being used in HTTP start line components. However, this mitigation places the burden on application developers and is error-prone. The issue is fixed by extending NIOHTTPRequestHeadersValidator to validate request URIs against the character set defined in RFC 9112 Section 3.2 and RFC 3986 Section 3, and to validate custom HTTP methods against the token grammar defined in RFC 9110. NIOHTTPResponseHeadersValidator is extended to validate custom response reason phrases against RFC 9112 Section 4. Applications that use these validator channel handlers — which are installed by default when using addHTTPClientHandlers() or addHTTPServerHandlers() — will reject invalid outbound messages with an HTTPParserError.invalidHeaderToken error rather than emitting them to the network.

SwiftNIO is grateful to @kuranikaran and @YLChen-007 for their reporting and assistance with the project's process.

CVSS v3
—
EchelonGraph score
Not yet assessedNo source has published severity data for this CVE yet — no CVSS score from NVD or a CNA, no GitHub advisory, and it is not in CISA KEV. This is not a rating of zero; we cannot assess it yet.
EG Score
—
EG Risk
—
EPSS PROB
<0.1%
EPSS %ILE
14th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

EG Severity
Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
EG Likelihood
<0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the BOD 26-04 block below.

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

June 12, 2026

Last Modified

June 12, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-28970(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
swiftgithub.com/apple/swift-nio @ 2.100.0 (fixes >= 2.0.0, <= 2.99.0)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 1× in last 7d / 7× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 07:55 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-cq87-8r7h-962v · GitHub severity MODERATE
  2. 2026-10-25 14:37 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-18 03:50 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-12 16:16 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-11 19:58 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 17:12 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 14:41 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-08-01 09:36 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-07-26 20:43 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-07-23 03:08 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-06-14 23:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS <0.1% · 14th percentile
  12. 2026-06-13 23:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS <0.1% · 14th percentile
  13. 2026-06-12 15:11 UTCEG score recompute

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-28970?
CVE-2026-28970 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on June 12, 2026. SwiftNIO: CRLF Injection in outbound HTTP request URI via NIOHTTPRequestHeadersValidator Programs using swift-nio is vulnerable to HTTP request smuggling and HTTP response splitting attacks, caused by insufficient validation of outbound HTTP/1.1 request and response start line components. This…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-28970 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-28970 was published on June 12, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of June 12, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-28970 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-28970 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a <0.1% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (14th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-28970?
A fixed version for CVE-2026-28970 is listed under Patch Availability on this page: update to the version listed for your package. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-28970 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-28970

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-28970?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.