CVE-2026-86146

HIGHPre-NVD 7.57.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

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

This high-severity CVE scores 7.5 under CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.5% (46th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1
Sources: CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1, EPSS
Trending — 4 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2026-107226 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-qgcc-7cgj-hmr3 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.5%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

The CVE record names the fixed release — apply it.

Inconsistent interpretation of HTTP requests (HTTP request/response smuggling) in the bundled HTTP/1.1 parser of Apache bRPC (version < 1.18.0) on all platforms allows remote attackers to smuggle requests and inject headers when bRPC is deployed behind a proxy or load balancer that parses the same bytes differently.

Root Cause: The bRPC fork of http-parser accepts and acts on several HTTP/1.1 header forms that a conforming front-end either rejects or interprets differently, so the framing or the header set of a message can differ between the front-end and bRPC:

  • A space before the colon of framing headers (e.g. Content-Length : 5) is accepted; the value still drives bRPC's framing while the reported field name contains the trailing space.
  • Interior spaces inside a Content-Length value (e.g. Content-Length: 1 3) are skipped, so bRPC reads 13 where a front-end reads 1 or rejects the message (same class as CVE-2022-32213 in Node.js).
  • Obsolete line folding (obs-fold, RFC 7230 3.2.4) of Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding values is accepted, so a folded framing value drives bRPC's framing while a front-end that does not unfold sees a different message.
  • Chunked trailer fields are fed to the same header callbacks as the header section and are merged into the header map like real headers. A front-end only inspects the header section, so any chunked request can smuggle fields such as Authorization or X-Forwarded-For past it.
  • Transfer-Encoding lists with optional whitespace after a comma (e.g. Transfer-Encoding: gzip, chunked) are not recognized as chunked: such requests are rejected, and responses are read until connection close instead of as chunked, causing response desync.

Affected Scenarios: bRPC server or client communicating over HTTP/1.1 with a front proxy, load balancer, or any peer that parses the message independently. An attacker able to send requests through the front-end can desynchronize the two parsers to smuggle requests, forge headers (e.g. Authorization, X-Forwarded-For) via chunked trailers, or desynchronize responses.

How to Fix: (Choose one of the following options)

  • Upgrade bRPC to version 1.18.0, which fixes this issue.
  • Apply this patch: https://github.com/apache/brpc/pull/3521

Note: After applying the fix, the four header forms above are rejected by default and chunked trailers are dropped instead of merged into the header map. Two gflags are provided for compatibility: http_allow_obs_fold=true restores acceptance of folded Content-Length/Transfer-Encoding values, and http_strict_header_token=true additionally rejects spaces inside any header field name (not only the ones that decide framing). Legitimate clients that do not use these obsolete forms are unaffected.

CVSS v3
7.5
EG Score
7.5HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
49
EG Risk 49/100

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.
Exploitation0.2% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.5%
EPSS %ILE
46th
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.CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 · CVSS v3.1
EG Likelihood
0.5% 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
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).

The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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; 60 days if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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

October 21, 2026

Last Modified

October 30, 2026

Advisory Details (1)

Auto-updated Oct 30, 2026
Fix named in the CVE record.

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-86146(1)

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

Weakness Classification(1)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 13× in last 7d / 22× 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 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 46th percentile
  2. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.5% · 46th percentile
  3. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  4. 2026-10-30 15:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qgcc-7cgj-hmr3
  5. 2026-10-30 14:50 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.5 HIGH
  6. 2026-10-30 14:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qgcc-7cgj-hmr3
  7. 2026-10-30 14:49 UTCMITRE cvelistV5CVSS v3 → 7.5 · severity → HIGH
  8. 2026-10-29 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  9. 2026-10-28 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  10. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  11. 2026-10-26 20:36 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-26 20:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qgcc-7cgj-hmr3
  13. 2026-10-26 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  14. 2026-10-25 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  15. 2026-10-25 13:55 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  17. 2026-10-22 17:13 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-10-22 17:12 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-qgcc-7cgj-hmr3
  19. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  20. 2026-10-21 14:28 UTCNVD update
  21. 2026-10-21 12:26 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-10-21 12:26 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-86146?
CVE-2026-86146 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 21, 2026. Inconsistent interpretation of HTTP requests (HTTP request/response smuggling) in the bundled HTTP/1.1 parser of Apache bRPC (version < 1.18.0) on all platforms allows remote attackers to smuggle requests and inject headers when bRPC is deployed behind a proxy or load balancer that parses the same…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-86146 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-86146 was published on October 21, 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 October 30, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-86146 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-86146 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.5% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (46th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-86146?
CVE-2026-86146 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (CISA-ADP / Vulnrichment enrichment; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-86146?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-86146 names the fix: "Upgrade bRPC to version 1.18.0, which fixes this issue." The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-86146 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-86146

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-86146?

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