CVE-2026-63202

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-4899-mpch-38p3 (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 BinaryHttpParser: Unauthenticated CPU-exhaustion DoS via infinite loop in field-section decoding

BinaryHttpParser: Unauthenticated CPU-exhaustion DoS via infinite loop in field-section decoding

  • ID: BHTTP-LOOP-001
  • Severity: High
  • CVSS v3.1: 7.5 — CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
  • CWE: CWE-835 (Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition) — secondary CWE-400 (Uncontrolled Resource Consumption)
  • Affected component: codec-bhttp → io.netty.incubator.codec.bhttp.BinaryHttpParser#readFieldSection, file codec-bhttp/src/main/java/io/netty/incubator/codec/bhttp/BinaryHttpParser.java:619-626
  • Affected version: netty-incubator-codec-ohttp HEAD d3f2b49 (release 0.0.22.Final + 3 commits). The loop has existed since the parser was introduced and is present in the latest code; all published advisory fixes are already applied.
  • Reachable from: io.netty.incubator.codec.ohttp.OHttpRequestResponseContext$ContentDecoder#decodeChunk (codec-ohttp/.../OHttpRequestResponseContext.java:214), i.e. the auto-wired OHTTP server and client codecs.
  • Confidence: High (empirically reproduced hang + thread dump against the unmodified parser).

Summary

BinaryHttpParser decodes Binary HTTP (RFC 9292) messages. An OHTTP gateway/client built on this library feeds the decrypted OHTTP body straight into BinaryHttpParser.parse(...). The field-section decoding loop terminates only on the exact condition fieldSectionLength != 0 and relies on a Java assert to guarantee forward progress. Because (a) the loop counter can be driven negative and (b) readFieldLine(...) legitimately consumes zero bytes and returns null on a truncated/over-long field line, the loop can spin forever. Assertions are disabled in any normal production JVM, so the two assert statements meant to catch this provide no protection.

A single ~17-byte Binary HTTP message — encapsulated by an unauthenticated attacker inside a normal OHTTP request, using the gateway's public key configuration — pins one Netty event-loop thread at 100% CPU permanently. A handful of such requests exhausts the entire event-loop group and takes the OHTTP gateway (or client) fully offline.

Root cause

BinaryHttpParser.java:619-626:

HeaderType lastType = HeaderType.PSEUDO_HEADER;
while (fieldSectionLength != 0) {            // 619  — "!= 0", not "> 0"
    int readableBytes = in.readableBytes();
    lastType = readFieldLine(in, headers, lastType, trailers);
    assert lastType != null;                 // 622  — no-op without -ea
    int read = readableBytes - in.readableBytes();
    assert read > 0;                         // 624  — no-op without -ea
    fieldSectionLength -= read;              // 625
}

Two cooperating defects:

  • Counter can never hit zero. fieldSectionLength is the *declared* field-section byte length read from the wire (line 592). The loop subtracts the bytes each readFieldLine actually consumes. If a field line consumes more bytes than the (attacker-understated) declared length, fieldSectionLength goes negative and != 0 stays true forever.
  • Zero-progress iterations. readFieldLine (lines 654-707) returns null without consuming any bytes when the remaining buffer cannot hold a complete field line — at lines 656, 664, 670, and 681 (the in.skipBytes(sumBytes) that advances the reader is only reached on the success path, line 705). When it returns null, read == 0, fieldSectionLength is unchanged, and the loop re-enters with identical state — a tight busy spin.

The only constructs that would have stopped either case are the assert statements on lines 622 and 624, which the JVM strips unless started with -ea. Production deployments do not run with assertions enabled.

Reachability (hop-by-hop, every guard resolved)

Attacker model: OHTTP gateways publish their HPKE key configuration so that *any* client can encrypt requests to them. The attacker therefore encrypts a malicious BHTTP body under the gateway's public key — a perfectly valid OHTTP request. HPKE decapsulation succeeds; the plaintext is attacker-chosen.

  • OHttpServerCodec.decode → OHttpRequestResponseContext.parse → chunk decode → ContentDecoder.decodeChunk.
  • OHttpRequestResponseContext.java:211 decrypts the chunk into decryptedChunk; line 212 cumulates it; line 214 calls binaryHttpParser.parse(binaryHttpCumulation, completeBodyReceived) — attacker-controlled plaintext, no application code in between.
  • parse → READ_KNOWN_LENGTH_REQUEST_HEAD → readRequestHead (line 190).
  • readRequestHead reads the control data, then at lines 445-451 slices all remaining readable bytes as the field section and calls readFieldSection(..., knownLength=true, maxFieldSectionSize).
  • Inside readFieldSection:
  • Guard checkFieldSectionTooLarge(fieldSectionLength, max) (line 607): bounds only the *declared* length, which the PoC sets to 1. Passes — not a barrier.
  • Guard in.readableBytes() < sumBytes (line 609): sumBytes is built from the *declared* length, also tiny. Passes — not a barrier.
  • Guards assert (lines 622, 624): no-ops in production. Defeated by default.
  • Loop entered → spins forever (defects 1 + 2).

No reachable guard bounds the *actual* consumption or forces progress. maxFieldSectionSize is irrelevant because the declared length is small and the loop is CPU-bound on a fixed, small buffer (no allocation, no memory growth to trip any size cap).

Proof of concept (executed locally, benign liveness oracle)

The real codec-bhttp sources were compiled unmodified against netty 4.1.135.Final (the version pinned in pom.xml). The harness builds a valid known-length BHTTP request whose declared field-section length (0x01) is understated relative to the actual field line, then calls parse(in, true) on a worker thread with a 6-second watchdog. No payload, no side effects — purely a timing/CPU oracle.

Malicious message (17 bytes):

00 01 67 01 68 01 61 01 70 01 01 61 01 62 01 63 01
│  └method g └scheme h └auth a └path p │  └hdr a:b──┘ └ partial line
└ framing 0 (known-length request)     └ declared field-section length = 1

Observed (production default, assertions OFF):

[*] malicious BHTTP bytes (17): 0001670168016101700101610162016301
[!!] HANG CONFIRMED: parse() still running after 6000 ms
[!!] worker thread CPU time: 6029 ms (≈100% of one core => busy spin)
[!!] worker stack (top frames):
        at io.netty.incubator.codec.bhttp.BinaryHttpParser.readFieldSection(BinaryHttpParser.java:626)
        at io.netty.incubator.codec.bhttp.BinaryHttpParser.readRequestHead(BinaryHttpParser.java:451)
        at io.netty.incubator.codec.bhttp.BinaryHttpParser.parse(BinaryHttpParser.java:190)
CPU time ≈ wall time ⇒ a busy spin (RUNNABLE), not a blocked wait.

Controls:

  • Same input with -ea: parse() throws AssertionError at readFieldSection:624 immediately — proving the assertion is the only would-be guard and is absent in production.
  • Well-formed request (declared length matches): parse() returns DefaultBinaryHttpRequest promptly — proving the harness does not hang on valid input.

PoC sources: findings/netty-incubator-codec-ohttp/raw/Poc.java (hang + control 1) and raw/Poc2.java (negative control).

Impact

Unauthenticated, pre-business-logic remote denial of service. Each malicious request permanently consumes one Netty event-loop thread at 100% CPU. Netty event-loop groups have a small fixed thread count (default 2 × cores); a handful of requests exhausts every I/O thread, after which the gateway/client accepts no further connections and serves no traffic — a complete, persistent DoS that survives until process restart. Availability impact High; no confidentiality/integrity impact.

Adversarial re-reading (attempts to refute)

  • *"maxFieldSectionSize caps it."* No — the declared length in the PoC is 1; the cap (line 607) checks the declared value only. The spin happens on a 17-byte buffer with no allocation. Refutation fails.
  • *"An upstream HTTP size limit / HttpObjectAggregator blocks it."* No — the bug is CPU-bound, not memory-bound. The whole malicious message is tiny and well within any size limit. Refutation fails.
  • *"This is just CVE-2024-40642 (absent input validation)."* No — that advisory was about missing validation of method/scheme/authority/path enabling injection; that fix (the ALLOWED_TOKEN/ALLOWED_SCHEME validators, lines 76-122/461-466) is present and unrelated. This is a control-flow/termination defect in field-section length accounting. Distinct class, distinct code.
  • *"The hang might be a harness artifact."* No — the thread dump pinpoints readFieldSection:626; CPU≈wall confirms a spin; the -ea control throws at the exact assert; the well-formed control returns. The hang is for the claimed reason.
  • *"completeBodyReceived must be true."* Not required — the loop is inside readFieldSection, reached via readRequestHead once the control data is present, independent of that flag. The flag only affects a branch taken *after* readRequestHead returns null, which never happens here.

No concrete blocker survived. Verdict: CONFIRMED.

Remediation

  • Change the loop exit condition to while (fieldSectionLength > 0) so an overshoot (negative counter) terminates.
  • Treat a null / zero-progress return from readFieldLine while fieldSectionLength > 0 as a hard framing error — throw CorruptedFrameException("truncated or over-long field line") instead of re-looping.
  • Reject any field line whose consumed byte count would drive fieldSectionLength below 0 (the declared length must be consumed exactly, per RFC 9292 §3.6).
  • Do not rely on assert for wire-format invariants on attacker-controlled input; assertions are disabled in production. Promote lines 622/624 to explicit exceptions.

Example:

while (fieldSectionLength > 0) {
    int readableBytes = in.readableBytes();
    lastType = readFieldLine(in, headers, lastType, trailers);
    int read = readableBytes - in.readableBytes();
    if (lastType == null || read <= 0) {
        throw new CorruptedFrameException("truncated or over-long field line");
    }
    if (read > fieldSectionLength) {
        throw new CorruptedFrameException("field line exceeds declared field-section length");
    }
    fieldSectionLength -= read;
}

Notes

  • The indeterminate-length field-section path (framing indicators 2/3) shares the same loop and the same != 0 / zero-progress structure; the fix above should cover both. A dedicated trace of getIndeterminateLength (lines 538-566) under non-default maxFieldSectionSize is recorded separately as a lead.
  • Default maxFieldSectionSize for the OHTTP codecs is 8 * 1024 (OHttpCodecBuilder.DEFAULT_MAX_FIELD_SECTION_SIZE), and is irrelevant to this CPU-bound spin.

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-2026-63202(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-4899-mpch-38p3 · 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. 2026-09-28 23:58 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-08-20 19:42 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.5 HIGH

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-63202?
CVE-2026-63202 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on August 20, 2026. netty-incubator-codec-ohttp BinaryHttpParser: Unauthenticated CPU-exhaustion DoS via infinite loop in field-section decoding BinaryHttpParser: Unauthenticated CPU-exhaustion DoS via infinite loop in field-section decoding ID: BHTTP-LOOP-001 Severity: High CVSS v3.1: 7.5 —…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-63202 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-63202 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-2026-63202?
CVE-2026-63202 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-2026-63202?
A fix for CVE-2026-63202 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-63202 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-2026-63202

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-63202?

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