Skip to content

Hackney has CRLF / header injection via unvalidated `domain` and `path` options

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 25, 2026 in benoitc/hackney • Updated Jun 26, 2026

Package

hackney (Erlang)

Affected versions

>= 0.9.0, < 4.0.1

Patched versions

4.0.1

Description

Summary

CRLF injection in hackney_cookie:setcookie/3 (src/hackney_cookie.erl). The function validates Name and Value against CR/LF and control characters but concatenates the domain and path options verbatim into the output binary. If either option carries attacker-controlled data, a Host header forwarded as the cookie domain, a request URI forwarded as the cookie path, a \r\n in the value splits the Set-Cookie header and lets the attacker inject additional headers into the HTTP response.

Details

1. Asymmetric validation

Lines 27–34 of hackney_cookie.erl run binary:match on Name and Value, rejecting =, ,, ;, whitespace, \r, \n, \013, and \014. The Domain and Path options (lines 47 and 51) skip this check entirely and land straight in the result iolist:

[<<"; Domain=">>, Domain]
[<<"; Path=">>,   Path]

iolist_to_binary(...) on line 63 flattens everything and returns it to the caller.

2. Injection

A Path of <<"/x\r\nSet-Cookie: admin=1; Path=/">> produces a binary with a literal \r\n. Written into a Set-Cookie response header, the receiving HTTP parser splits it into two headers — one legitimate, one attacker-controlled.

3. Realistic trigger

Common patterns: keying the cookie domain off Host, deriving the path from the request URI, or copying a Location path into a cookie. Any of these lets a remote attacker control the injected content.

PoC

  1. Call hackney_cookie:setcookie(<<"sid">>, <<"abc">>, [{path, <<"/x\r\nSet-Cookie: admin=1; Path=/">>}]).
  2. The returned binary contains a literal \r\n followed by a second Set-Cookie: line.
  3. Write the result into a Set-Cookie response header — the client parses two headers, including admin=1.

Impact

Cookie injection / HTTP response splitting at the hackney_cookie API boundary. Affects hackney 0.9.0 through 4.0.0 wherever domain or path options are populated from request data. Exploitation can overwrite session/auth cookies, fix cookies, or strip Secure/HttpOnly flags. CVSS v4.0: 2.1 (LOW) — requires attacker-controlled input to reach the domain or path option.

Resources

References

@benoitc benoitc published to benoitc/hackney May 25, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 25, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 26, 2026
Reviewed Jun 26, 2026
Last updated Jun 26, 2026

Severity

Low

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(29th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')

The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-47069

GHSA ID

GHSA-mp55-p8c9-rfw2

Source code

Credits

Dependabot alerts are not supported on some or all of the ecosystems on this advisory.

Learn more about GitHub language support

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.