CVE-2026-57210

HIGHCVSS · not yet scored
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: 0

No vendor fix yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for a patch.

Heimdall: IP Spoofing via Unvalidated Forwarding Headers

Summary

When the trusted_proxies option is configured, heimdall extracts client IP addresses from the Forwarded (for= parameter) and X-Forwarded-For headers and exposes them as Request.ClientIPAddresses to the rule pipeline. However, extracted values are not validated to be syntactically valid IP addresses. Arbitrary strings, malformed IP literals, and RFC 7239 unknown values and obfuscated identifiers are accepted without further checks. In addition, the Forwarded header parser splits on , and ; without accounting for RFC 7239 quoted strings, which can cause a single quoted value to be parsed as multiple entries, with fragments — including trailing quote characters — treated as independent addresses.

Impact

Request.ClientIPAddresses is available to all pipeline mechanisms. Its contents can therefore influence rule evaluation in deployments where rules reference this property — for example, in a CEL authorizer that checks whether a request originates from a trusted IP range using the networks() function, or in a Remote authorizer that forwards the client IP as part of its payload to an external authorization system. Whether and how Request.ClientIPAddresses is used is entirely determined by the rule configuration.

Additionally, in proxy mode, Request.ClientIPAddresses is used directly to construct the X-Forwarded-For and Forwarded headers forwarded to upstream services. Injected or malformed values are therefore propagated to upstream services unchanged.

Attack Scenarios

All scenarios require that trusted_proxies is configured. If this option is not set, heimdall ignores forwarding headers entirely, and this vulnerability is not exploitable. Scenarios A and C (see below) additionally require that rules reference Request.ClientIPAddresses in their pipeline.

Scenario A – Manipulation of rule evaluation

An attacker who can influence forwarding headers — either by connecting directly to heimdall or through a proxy that does not sanitize these headers — can inject arbitrary values into Request.ClientIPAddresses. In deployments where a rule references this property (e.g. to restrict access to specific IP ranges), this may allow an attacker to bypass the intended access control logic.

Scenario B – IP spoofing against upstream services (proxy mode)

In proxy mode, injected or malformed values in Request.ClientIPAddresses are written unchanged into the X-Forwarded-For header sent to upstream services. Upstream services that trust this header may therefore receive and act on attacker-controlled IP values.

Scenario C – Malformed entries via quoted-string misparse

A Forwarded header containing a quoted value with embedded delimiters (, or ;) is misparsed, producing unintended additional entries in Request.ClientIPAddresses, including malformed fragments with trailing quote characters.

Workarounds

* Ensure at the network level that only trusted proxies can communicate directly with heimdall. * Ensure that the proxy forwarding the requests to heimdall sanitizes or overrides (not merely appends to) Forwarded or X-Forwarded-For headers before forwarding them. * Avoid relying on Request.ClientIPAddresses for security-sensitive decisions until patched

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

Published

June 18, 2026

Last Modified

June 18, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-57210(1)

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

Affected Packages

(2 across 1 ecosystem)
Go(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFixed inDependents
github.com/dadrus/heimdall0.17.17
https://github.com/dadrus/heimdall0.17.17

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 0× in last 7d / 0× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. 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. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-08-02 06:29 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-07-26 17:46 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-07-23 03:20 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-07-20 21:35 UTCEG score recompute

Frequently asked(3)

What is CVE-2026-57210?
CVE-2026-57210 is a high vulnerability published on June 18, 2026. Heimdall: IP Spoofing via Unvalidated Forwarding Headers Summary When the trusted_proxies option is configured, heimdall extracts client IP addresses from the Forwarded (for= parameter) and X-Forwarded-For headers and exposes them as Request.ClientIPAddresses to the rule pipeline. However,…
When was CVE-2026-57210 disclosed?
CVE-2026-57210 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on June 18, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
How do I remediate CVE-2026-57210?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2026-57210, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-57210

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-57210?

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