CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
LOW

CVE-2021-32715

CVE-2021-32715 — Lenient Parsing of Content-Length Header When Prefixed with Plus Sign

hyper is an HTTP library for rust. hyper's HTTP/1 server code had a flaw that incorrectly parses and accepts requests with a `Content-Length` header with a prefixed plus sign, when it should have been rejected as illegal. This combined with an upstream HTTP proxy that doesn't parse such `Content-Length` headers, but forwards them, can result in "request smuggling" or "desync attacks". The flaw exists in all prior versions of hyper prior to 0.14.10, if built with `rustc` v1.5.0 or newer. The vulnerability is patched in hyper version 0.14.10. Two workarounds exist: One may reject requests manually that contain a plus sign prefix in the `Content-Length` header or ensure any upstream proxy handles `Content-Length` headers with a plus sign prefix.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

1%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

hyperium

hyper

CVSS base

3.1

LOW

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

Products (1)

hyper

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
3.1CVSS 3.1LOWcvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-444

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /1.

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.