CVE-2026-28975

MEDIUMCVSS · not yet scored

Also known asGHSA-6ph5-fww6-vfwv (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.

NIOExtras: NIOHTTPRequestDecompressor ratio limit bypass via inflated Content-Length

Impact

When NIOHTTPRequestDecompressor is configured with .ratio(N), the decompression limit is enforced using the Content-Length header value from the incoming request rather than the actual number of compressed bytes received. Since Content-Length is attacker-controlled, a malicious client can supply an inflated value that causes the ratio check to always pass, effectively disabling the configured decompression limit.

This allows an attacker to send a small, highly-compressed payload (a "gzip bomb") with a falsified Content-Length header to bypass the ratio-based protection entirely. The server will decompress the payload without limit, consuming unbounded memory and potentially causing denial of service.

For example, a gzip payload containing highly repetitive data can achieve amplification ratios of several hundred to one. Under .ratio(10) such a payload should be rejected, but if the attacker sets Content-Length to match the decompressed size, the check evaluates decompressed > decompressed * 10 which is always false, and the payload is accepted without error.

Across repeated requests, this allows sustained memory amplification far exceeding the configured limits with no error raised.

Relationship to CVE-2020-9840

GHSA-xhhr-p2r9-jmm7 (CVE-2020-9840) found that the .size limit checked compressed rather than decompressed bytes and recommended .ratio as a workaround. This advisory identifies a distinct flaw in the .ratio limit itself: it uses the attacker-supplied Content-Length header as the denominator rather than actual consumed compressed bytes. The two vulnerabilities are in the same decompression limit enforcement code but involve non-overlapping logic errors.

Users who followed the CVE-2020-9840 workaround by switching to .ratio(N) are affected by this vulnerability.

Patches

Fixed in swift-nio-extras 1.34.1. The fix unifies the request and response decompressor implementations so that both accumulate actual compressed bytes received (compressedLength += part.readableBytes) rather than relying on any header-supplied value.

Workarounds

Use .size(N) instead of .ratio(N) if a fixed upper bound on decompressed output is acceptable for the application. The .size limit is not affected by this vulnerability as it does not reference Content-Length.

Credits

NIOExtras is grateful to @nathanielmiller23 for their reporting and assistance with the 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
13th
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-2026-28975(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-extras @ 1.34.1 (fixes < 1.34.1)—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(2)

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-6ph5-fww6-vfwv · 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. 2026-07-30 09:27 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% · 13th percentile
  12. 2026-06-13 23:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS <0.1% · 13th percentile
  13. 2026-06-12 15:11 UTCEG score recompute

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-28975?
CVE-2026-28975 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on June 12, 2026. NIOExtras: NIOHTTPRequestDecompressor ratio limit bypass via inflated Content-Length Impact When NIOHTTPRequestDecompressor is configured with .ratio(N), the decompression limit is enforced using the Content-Length header value from the incoming request rather than the actual number of compressed…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-28975 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-28975 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-2026-28975 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-28975 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a <0.1% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (13th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-28975?
A fixed version for CVE-2026-28975 is listed under Patch Availability on this page: update to the version listed for your package. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-28975 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-28975

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-28975?

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