CVE-2026-67354
CVE-2026-67354 — guzzlehttp/guzzle before 7.15.1 URI Fragment Disclosure via Referer
guzzlehttp/guzzle versions before 7.15.1 contain an information disclosure vulnerability in RedirectMiddleware. When the optional allow_redirects.referer setting is enabled, the middleware copies the URI fragment (the portion after '#') from the referring request into the generated Referer header when following a same-scheme redirect (e.g., HTTPS to HTTPS). An attacker who controls the redirect destination can read this fragment from the incoming Referer header, potentially disclosing one-time login secrets, access tokens, state values, or other sensitive client data to a server never meant to receive it. The referer setting is disabled by default. Fixed in 7.15.1, which strips the fragment before generating the Referer value.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, VulnCheck
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
CVSS base
5.9
MEDIUM
CISA SSVC assessment
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
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.
Vendors (1)
Products (1)
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.9 | CVSS 3.1 | MEDIUM | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-201
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 /guzzle.
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.