Open-Source Security Intelligence

Know every vulnerability
before it knows you.

DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.

Search

GHSA-7p3p-8qv8-m2vh

MediumCVSS 5.3 / 10
Published Jul 22, 2026·Last modified Jul 22, 2026
Affected Components(0)

No affected components available

Description

Summary

Jetty currently accepts HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 requests where the regular Host header and the pseudo-header :authority do not match. As a result, the same request can carry two different host identities through Jetty:

  • logic based on HttpURI / Request.getServerName(request) uses :authority
  • logic based on raw request headers continues to use Host

This creates a host/authority confusion condition that can break security assumptions in higher layers.

Jetty already performs an explicit authority/Host consistency check on the HTTP/1.1 path, but equivalent validation is missing on the HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 paths.

Security Impact

This issue is not inherently remote code execution, but it can become security-relevant in deployments that rely on the request host for security-sensitive decisions, including:

  • host-based access control
  • virtual host isolation
  • multi-tenant routing by hostname
  • login/logout/callback URL construction
  • reverse proxy and forwarded-header trust chains
  • auditing, cache keys, and absolute URL generation

Potential consequences include:

  • bypass of host-based ACLs
  • virtual host or tenant isolation failures
  • incorrect or attacker-influenced redirect/callback targets
  • inconsistent proxy/downstream interpretation of the original target host
  • misleading logs and audit records

Technical Root Cause

  1. On the HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 metadata builder paths:
  • :authority is parsed separately into authority/URI state
  • Host is preserved as a normal request header
  • the two values are not compared for consistency
  1. On the HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 server entry paths:
  • Jetty calls ComplianceUtils.verify(httpCompliance, requestMetaData, listener)
  • this verification does not enforce MISMATCHED_AUTHORITY
  1. On the HTTP/1.1 path:
  • Jetty explicitly checks whether authority and Host match
  • mismatches are rejected by default

Relevant Code Locations

HTTP/2 metadata builder:

  • jetty-core/jetty-http2/jetty-http2-hpack/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http2/hpack/internal/MetaDataBuilder.java

HTTP/3 metadata builder:

  • jetty-core/jetty-http3/jetty-http3-qpack/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http3/qpack/internal/metadata/MetaDataBuilder.java

HTTP/2 server entry:

  • jetty-core/jetty-http2/jetty-http2-server/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http2/server/internal/HttpStreamOverHTTP2.java

HTTP/3 server entry:

  • jetty-core/jetty-http3/jetty-http3-server/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http3/server/internal/HttpStreamOverHTTP3.java

Shared HTTP compliance verification:

  • jetty-core/jetty-http/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http/ComplianceUtils.java

HTTP/1.1 authority/Host consistency check:

  • jetty-core/jetty-server/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/server/internal/HttpConnection.java

Defined but not enforced on H2/H3:

  • jetty-core/jetty-http/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http/HttpCompliance.java
  • violation: MISMATCHED_AUTHORITY

Reproduction

I reproduced this on local Jetty 12.1.9-SNAPSHOT source.

Minimal reproduction steps:

  1. Start a Jetty HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 test server.
  2. Send a request with:
    • :authority = localhost:<port>
    • Host = evil.example:<port>
  3. In the request handler, inspect both:
    • Request.getServerName(request)
    • request.getHeaders().get(HttpHeader.HOST)
  4. Observe whether Jetty rejects the request or allows both values to remain visible. Observed result:
    • HTTP/2: request is accepted and returns 200
    • HTTP/3: request is accepted and returns 200
    • the server can observe both:
      • serverName=localhost
      • hostHeader=evil.example:<port>

This shows that a single attacker-controlled request can preserve two conflicting host interpretations inside Jetty.

Tests Used

HTTP/2 rejection test:

  • org.eclipse.jetty.http2.tests.HTTP2Test#testRejectMismatchedHostHeaderAndAuthority

HTTP/2 exploitability test:

  • org.eclipse.jetty.http2.tests.HTTP2Test#testMismatchedHostHeaderAndAuthoritySplitsAuthorityFromHostHeader

HTTP/3 rejection test:

  • org.eclipse.jetty.http3.tests.HandlerClientServerTest#testRejectMismatchedHostHeaderAndAuthority

HTTP/3 exploitability test:

  • org.eclipse.jetty.http3.tests.HandlerClientServerTest#testMismatchedHostHeaderAndAuthoritySplitsAuthorityFromHostHeader

Observed behavior:

  • both rejection tests fail because Jetty returns 200 instead of 400
  • both exploitability tests pass, confirming that Jetty exposes different host values to different layers

Project-Internal Evidence of Real Impact

Examples:

  • jetty-openid uses Request.getServerName(request) to construct redirect URLs
  • jetty-ee11-proxy uses the raw Host header when building Forwarded

This indicates that the issue is not merely theoretical: Jetty’s own ecosystem already contains code paths where different host sources are used for different purposes.

Affected Version

Confirmed affected version:

  • 12.1.9-SNAPSHOT

Other versions may also be affected if they share the same HTTP/2 / HTTP/3 request construction and compliance-validation logic. I have not yet completed a historical version matrix and would recommend confirming exact affected ranges from Jetty’s branch history.

Suggested Fix

Recommend adding HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 validation equivalent to the existing HTTP/1.1 authority/Host consistency check:

  • if both :authority and regular Host are present
    • normalize and compare them
    • if they do not match, reject the request with 400 Bad Request
    • route the failure through the existing MISMATCHED_AUTHORITY compliance mechanism

Also adding explicit HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 regression coverage for this case.

Disclosure Status

  • not publicly disclosed
  • no public issue filed
  • shared only privately with the Jetty security contacts
Risk Scores
Base Score
5.3

The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is easy for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker does not need any special privileges or access rights. No user interaction is needed for the attacker to exploit this vulnerability. The impact is confined to the system where the vulnerability exists. There is a low impact on the integrity of the data.

Threat Intelligence
4.9

Exploitation attempts have been detected. Elevated vigilance and prompt remediation are advised.

EPSS
0.20%

The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.

Exploit
Not available

We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.

Browse More

Scan your project

Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.

Checkout DevGuard