Total
71 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2016-4975 | 2 Apache, Redhat | 3 Http Server, Enterprise Linux, Jboss Core Services | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| Possible CRLF injection allowing HTTP response splitting attacks for sites which use mod_userdir. This issue was mitigated by changes made in 2.4.25 and 2.2.32 which prohibit CR or LF injection into the "Location" or other outbound header key or value. Fixed in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.25 (Affected 2.4.1-2.4.23). Fixed in Apache HTTP Server 2.2.32 (Affected 2.2.0-2.2.31). | ||||
| CVE-2016-10803 | 1 Cpanel | 1 Cpanel | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| cPanel before 57.9999.105 allows newline injection via LOC records (CPANEL-6923). | ||||
| CVE-2015-9097 | 1 Mail Project | 1 Mail | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| The mail gem before 2.5.5 for Ruby (aka A Really Ruby Mail Library) is vulnerable to SMTP command injection via CRLF sequences in a RCPT TO or MAIL FROM command, as demonstrated by CRLF sequences immediately before and after a DATA substring. | ||||
| CVE-2015-9096 | 1 Ruby-lang | 1 Ruby | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| Net::SMTP in Ruby before 2.4.0 is vulnerable to SMTP command injection via CRLF sequences in a RCPT TO or MAIL FROM command, as demonstrated by CRLF sequences immediately before and after a DATA substring. | ||||
| CVE-2015-0770 | 1 Cisco | 1 Telepresence Tc Software | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| CRLF injection vulnerability in Cisco TelePresence TC 6.x before 6.3.4 and 7.x before 7.3.3 on Integrator C SX20 devices allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers and conduct HTTP response splitting attacks via a crafted URL, aka Bug ID CSCut79341. | ||||
| CVE-2014-9564 | 1 Ibm | 4 En6131, En6131 Firmware, Ib6131 and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| CRLF injection vulnerability in IBM Flex System EN6131 40Gb Ethernet and IB6131 40Gb Infiniband Switch firmware before 3.4.1110 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers and conduct HTTP response splitting attacks and resulting web cache poisoning or cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks, or obtain sensitive information via multiple unspecified parameters. | ||||
| CVE-2014-9563 | 2 Atos, Unify | 8 Openscape Desk Phone Ip 35g, Openscape Desk Phone Ip 35g Eco, Openscape Desk Phone Ip 55g and 5 more | 2024-11-21 | 4.9 Medium |
| CRLF injection vulnerability in the web-based management (WBM) interface in Unify (former Siemens) OpenStage SIP and OpenScape Desk Phone IP V3 devices before R3.32.0 allows remote authenticated users to modify the root password and consequently access the debug port using the serial interface via the ssh-password parameter to page.cmd. | ||||
| CVE-2014-2017 | 1 Oxidforge | 1 Eshop | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| CRLF injection vulnerability in OXID eShop Professional Edition before 4.7.11 and 4.8.x before 4.8.4, Enterprise Edition before 5.0.11 and 5.1.x before 5.1.4, and Community Edition before 4.7.11 and 4.8.x before 4.8.4 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers and conduct HTTP response splitting attacks via unspecified vectors. | ||||
| CVE-2007-0892 | 1 Matthieu Aubry | 1 Phpmyvisites | 2024-11-21 | N/A |
| CRLF injection vulnerability in phpMyVisites before 2.2 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers and conduct HTTP response splitting attacks via CRLF sequences in the url parameter, when the pagename parameter begins with "FILE:". | ||||
| CVE-2024-51501 | 1 Reactiveui | 1 Refit | 2024-11-08 | N/A |
| Refit is an automatic type-safe REST library for .NET Core, Xamarin and .NET The various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. The way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the `HttpHeaders.TryAddWithoutValidation` method. This method does not check for CRLF characters in the header value. This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. If an application using the Refit library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using Refit and not in Refit itself. This issue has been addressed in release versions 7.2.22 and 8.0.0 and all users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability. | ||||
| CVE-2024-45302 | 1 Restsharp | 1 Restsharp | 2024-10-01 | 6.1 Medium |
| RestSharp is a Simple REST and HTTP API Client for .NET. The second argument to `RestRequest.AddHeader` (the header value) is vulnerable to CRLF injection. The same applies to `RestRequest.AddOrUpdateHeader` and `RestClient.AddDefaultHeader`. The way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the `HttpHeaders.TryAddWithoutValidation` method which does not check for CRLF characters in the header value. This means that any headers from a `RestSharp.RequestHeaders` object are added to the request in such a way that they are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. If an application using the RestSharp library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery. Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using RestSharp, not in RestSharp itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the RestSharp documentation. RestSharp has addressed this issue in version 112.0.0. All users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability. | ||||