CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
LOW

CVE-2026-50052

CVE-2026-50052 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Intelligence

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0.1 and Varnish Cache before 9.0.3, a deficiency in HTTP/2 request parsing can be exploited to launch a backend request desync attack (request smuggling), which in turn can be used for cache poisoning, authentication bypass, or possibly even information disclosure and manipulation. The attack vector only exists if HTTP/2 support is enabled by setting the feature parameter to contain +http2. HTTP/2 support is disabled by default.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, mitre

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

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

the vinyl cache project

3 products listed

CVSS base

2.3

LOW

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

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.

Products (3)

vinyl cachevarnish cache pre splitvarnish cache by varnish software

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
2.3CVSS 4.0LOWcvelistV5

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 /2.

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.