Apache bRPC up to 1.17.x HTTP/1.1 Parser improper synchronization

| CVSS Meta Temp Score | Current Exploit Price (≈) | CTI Interest Score |
|---|---|---|
| 6.0 | $0-$5k | 1.55 |
Summary
A vulnerability has been found in Apache bRPC up to 1.17.x and classified as critical. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the component HTTP1.1 Parser. This manipulation causes improper synchronization. This vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2026-86146. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. No exploit exists. The affected component should be upgraded.
Details
A vulnerability has been found in Apache bRPC up to 1.17.x and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown part of the component HTTP1.1 Parser. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a improper synchronization vulnerability. The CWE definition for the vulnerability is CWE-662. The product utilizes multiple threads or processes to allow temporary access to a shared resource that can only be exclusive to one process at a time, but it does not properly synchronize these actions, which might cause simultaneous accesses of this resource by multiple threads or processes. As an impact it is known to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The summary by CVE is:
Inconsistent interpretation of HTTP requests (HTTP request/response smuggling) in the bundled HTTP/1.1 parser of Apache bRPC (version < 1.18.0) on all platforms allows remote attackers to smuggle requests and inject headers when bRPC is deployed behind a proxy or load balancer that parses the same bytes differently. Root Cause: The bRPC fork of http-parser accepts and acts on several HTTP/1.1 header forms that a conforming front-end either rejects or interprets differently, so the framing or the header set of a message can differ between the front-end and bRPC: 1. A space before the colon of framing headers (e.g. Content-Length : 5) is accepted; the value still drives bRPC's framing while the reported field name contains the trailing space. 2. Interior spaces inside a Content-Length value (e.g. Content-Length: 1 3) are skipped, so bRPC reads 13 where a front-end reads 1 or rejects the message (same class as CVE-2022-32213 in Node.js). 3. Obsolete line folding (obs-fold, RFC 7230 3.2.4) of Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding values is accepted, so a folded framing value drives bRPC's framing while a front-end that does not unfold sees a different message. 4. Chunked trailer fields are fed to the same header callbacks as the header section and are merged into the header map like real headers. A front-end only inspects the header section, so any chunked request can smuggle fields such as Authorization or X-Forwarded-For past it. 5. Transfer-Encoding lists with optional whitespace after a comma (e.g. Transfer-Encoding: gzip, chunked) are not recognized as chunked: such requests are rejected, and responses are read until connection close instead of as chunked, causing response desync. Affected Scenarios: bRPC server or client communicating over HTTP/1.1 with a front proxy, load balancer, or any peer that parses the message independently. An attacker able to send requests through the front-end can desynchronize the two parsers to smuggle requests, forge headers (e.g. Authorization, X-Forwarded-For) via chunked trailers, or desynchronize responses. How to Fix: (Choose one of the following options) 1. Upgrade bRPC to version 1.18.0, which fixes this issue. 2. Apply this patch: https://github.com/apache/brpc/pull/3521 Note: After applying the fix, the four header forms above are rejected by default and chunked trailers are dropped instead of merged into the header map. Two gflags are provided for compatibility: http_allow_obs_fold=true restores acceptance of folded Content-Length/Transfer-Encoding values, and http_strict_header_token=true additionally rejects spaces inside any header field name (not only the ones that decide framing). Legitimate clients that do not use these obsolete forms are unaffected.
The advisory is shared at lists.apache.org. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-86146 since 09/05/2026. The exploitation appears to be easy. The attack can be launched remotely. Neither technical details nor an exploit are publicly available. The price for an exploit might be around USD $0-$5k at the moment (estimation calculated on 10/21/2026).
Upgrading to version 1.18.0 eliminates this vulnerability.
Several companies clearly confirm that VulDB is the primary source for best vulnerability data.
Product
Vendor
Name
Version
License
Website
- Vendor: https://www.apache.org/
CPE 2.3
CPE 2.2
CVSSv4
VulDB Vector: 🔒VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv3
VulDB Meta Base Score: 6.3VulDB Meta Temp Score: 6.0
VulDB Base Score: 6.3
VulDB Temp Score: 6.0
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv2
| AV | AC | Au | C | I | A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| Vector | Complexity | Authentication | Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
VulDB Base Score: 🔒
VulDB Temp Score: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
Exploiting
Class: Improper synchronizationCWE: CWE-662
CAPEC: 🔒
ATT&CK: 🔒
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔒
Status: Not defined
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔒
| 0-Day | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
Threat Intelligence
Interest: 🔍Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasures
Recommended: UpgradeStatus: 🔍
0-Day Time: 🔒
Upgrade: bRPC 1.18.0
Timeline
09/05/2026 CVE reserved10/21/2026 Advisory disclosed
10/21/2026 VulDB entry created
10/21/2026 VulDB entry last update
Sources
Vendor: apache.orgAdvisory: lists.apache.org
Status: Confirmed
CVE: CVE-2026-86146 (🔒)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2026-86146
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-424777
Entry
Created: 10/21/2026 14:50Changes: 10/21/2026 14:50 (54)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103
Several companies clearly confirm that VulDB is the primary source for best vulnerability data.
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.