CVE-2026-61799

MEDIUMPre-NVD 5.35.3
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 5.3 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: MODERATE) published 2026-08-20. The CNA's CVSS baseline 5.3; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: the CNA's CVSS, GitHub Security Advisory

Also known asGHSA-pgrf-4654-3gq8 (GitHub Security Advisories)

5.3EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 5.3Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

netty-incubator-codec-ohttp: Binary HTTP parser unchecked varint length overflow causes decoder crash

Summary

io.netty.incubator:netty-incubator-codec-bhttp uses attacker-controlled Binary HTTP variable-length integers as long values but accumulates them into int offsets. Large valid varint lengths wrap the internal offset negative, leading to unchecked ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException / IndexOutOfBoundsException from a tiny malformed BHTTP payload. A remote peer can trigger connection-level denial of service in applications that expose BinaryHttpParser / BinaryHttpDecoder to untrusted input.

Details

In codec-bhttp/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/bhttp/BinaryHttpParser.java, several parser paths store cumulative byte offsets in int sumBytes and then add attacker-controlled long lengths using compound assignment. In Java, int += long narrows the result back to int, so a length such as 2^31 wraps sumBytes negative.

Primary request-control-data path:

  • readRequestHead(...) declares int sumBytes = 0 at BinaryHttpParser.java:386.
  • It reads methodLength as a long at BinaryHttpParser.java:394.
  • It performs sumBytes += methodLength at BinaryHttpParser.java:395, narrowing the result to int.
  • If methodLength is 2^31, sumBytes wraps negative and bypasses if (sumBytes >= in.readableBytes()) return null at BinaryHttpParser.java:396-398.
  • The parser then computes schemeLengthIdx = in.readerIndex() + sumBytes and calls in.getByte(schemeLengthIdx) at BinaryHttpParser.java:401-402, producing a negative index exception.

The same pattern is present in header parsing:

  • readFieldLine(...) uses int sumBytes and adds long nameLength / long valueLength at BinaryHttpParser.java:659-680.
  • valueLengthIdx = nameIdx + (int) nameLength at BinaryHttpParser.java:674 can also overflow.

getIndeterminateLength(...) similarly uses int sumBytes and long possibleTerminator at BinaryHttpParser.java:544-553.

Proof of concept

Safe local verification performed in this repository. After compiling codec-bhttp, the following minimal verifier uses a 15-byte payload:

import io.netty.buffer.ByteBuf;
import io.netty.buffer.Unpooled;
import io.netty.incubator.codec.bhttp.BinaryHttpParser;

public final class VerifyBhttpOverflow { public static void main(String[] args) { byte[] payload = new byte[] { 0x00, (byte)0xc0, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, (byte)0x80, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x47, 0x45, 0x54, 0x58, 0x58, 0x58 }; ByteBuf input = Unpooled.wrappedBuffer(payload); try { new BinaryHttpParser(8192).parse(input, false); System.out.println("returned"); } catch (Throwable t) { System.out.println(t.getClass().getName()); System.out.println(t.getMessage()); } } }

Payload interpretation:

  • 00: known-length request frame indicator.
  • c000000080000000: valid 8-byte varint encoding of 0x80000000 (2^31) as the method length.
  • 474554585858: a few dummy bytes so the parser proceeds far enough to compute the next index.

Observed result:

java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
Index -2147483639 out of bounds for length 15

The parser should reject the malformed/incomplete message with a controlled decoder exception or return null awaiting more bytes; it should not allow integer wraparound to reach unchecked buffer indexing.

Impact

A remote peer can trigger an unchecked exception in the Binary HTTP decoder using a tiny payload. In typical Netty pipelines this closes or fails the affected channel. Depending on application-level exception handling, repeated payloads can cause sustained denial of service for exposed BHTTP endpoints. No memory corruption or information disclosure was observed because the failure occurs in Java/Netty bounds checks.

Suggested remediation

  • Use long for all cumulative byte counts derived from protocol lengths.
  • Before converting any protocol length to int, verify it is non-negative, no larger than Integer.MAX_VALUE, and no larger than available readable bytes and configured limits.
  • Replace sumBytes >= in.readableBytes() checks with precise checked arithmetic that permits exact-boundary complete fields but rejects impossible lengths.
  • Throw a controlled CorruptedFrameException / TooLongFrameException for invalid or unsupported lengths.
  • Add regression tests for 8-byte varint lengths at and above Integer.MAX_VALUE in request control data, response control data, known and indeterminate field sections, and field lines.

References

  • codec-bhttp/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/bhttp/BinaryHttpParser.java:386-402
  • codec-bhttp/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/bhttp/BinaryHttpParser.java:659-680
  • codec-bhttp/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/bhttp/BinaryHttpParser.java:544-553
  • RFC 9292: Binary Representation of HTTP Messages
  • RFC 9000 variable-length integer encoding

CVSS v3
5.3
EG Score
5.3MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
24
EG Risk 24/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity53% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 5.3 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0% × 40%
No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
—
EPSS %ILE
—
KEV
Not listed

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

The EG score (5.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
5.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA 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 SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

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

August 20, 2026

Last Modified

August 20, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-61799(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
mavenio.netty.incubator:netty-incubator-codec-bhttp @ 0.0.23.Final (fixes <= 0.0.22.Final)—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.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
Maven(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
io.netty.incubator:netty-incubator-codec-bhttp0.0.1.Final ... 0.0.9.Final (22 versions)
  • every version up to 0.0.23.Final: fixed in 0.0.23.Final
—

Weakness Classification(3)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 2× in last 7d / 8× 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 07:41 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-pgrf-4654-3gq8 · GitHub severity MODERATE · GitHub CVSS 5.3
  2. 2026-11-01 07:41 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-25 14:14 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-18 03:25 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-12 15:50 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 19:34 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 16:49 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 14:11 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-09-29 02:27 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-08-20 19:42 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 5.3 MEDIUM

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-61799?
CVE-2026-61799 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 20, 2026. netty-incubator-codec-ohttp: Binary HTTP parser unchecked varint length overflow causes decoder crash Summary io.netty.incubator:netty-incubator-codec-bhttp uses attacker-controlled Binary HTTP variable-length integers as long values but accumulates them into int offsets. Large valid varint lengths…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-61799 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-61799 was published on August 20, 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 August 20, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-61799?
CVE-2026-61799 has a CVSS base score of 5.3 (the CNA's own assessment, by github_m; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-61799?
A fix for CVE-2026-61799 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-61799 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-61799

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-61799?

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