Home/CVE/Tinyproxy through 1.11.3 is vulnerable to HTTP request parsing desynchronization due to a case-sensitive comparison of t
CVE

CVE-2026-31842

Tinyproxy through 1.11.3 is vulnerable to HTTP request parsing desynchronization due to a case-sensitive comparison of t

Tinyproxy through 1.11.3 is vulnerable to HTTP request parsing desynchronization due to a case-sensitive comparison of the Transfer-Encoding header in src/reqs.c. The is_chunked_transfer() function uses strcmp() to compare the header value against "chunked", even though RFC 7230 specifies that transfer-coding names are case-insensitive. By sending a request with Transfer-Encoding: Chunked, an unauthenticated remote attacker can cause Tinyproxy to misinterpret the request as having no body.

In this state, Tinyproxy sets content_length.client to -1, skips pull_client_data_chunked(), forwards request headers upstream, and transitions into relay_connection() raw TCP forwarding while unread body data remains buffered. This leads to inconsistent request state between Tinyproxy and backend servers. RFC-compliant backends (e.g., Node.js, Nginx) will continue waiting for chunked body data, causing connections to hang indefinitely.

This behavior enables application-level denial of service through backend worker exhaustion. Additionally, in deployments where Tinyproxy is used for request-body inspection, filtering, or security enforcement, the unread body may be forwarded without proper inspection, resulting in potential security control bypass.

HIGH · CVSS 7.5 EPSS 0.00149
Act now
  • Public exploit or PoC is available
  • SSVC automatable: yes - attacks can be scripted at scale
  • CVSS base score ≥ 7.0
Sigma rules0 YARA rules0
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-31842, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.
Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:
CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked. EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal. CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score. Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.
How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.
Then what - two workflows:
Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits. PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.
Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).

ATT&CK techniques

1

Techniques this CVE enables - linked via CWECAPECATT&CK. High◆ = named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei templates.

▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques

CAPEC attack patterns

2

Attack patterns this CVE enables - the bridge from weakness to ATT&CK technique.

Affected Products & Versions

1

Public Exploits & PoCs

4
These PoC and exploit links come from public sources and are not verified to be safe or functional. Review the code before running anything, and treat unverified entries as untrusted.
pocdatatracker.ietf.org · rfc7230datatracker.ietf.org

Scoring & Timeline

7.5
HIGH · CVSS v3.1 · 309f9ea4-e3e9-4c6c-b79d-e8eb01244f2c
View on NVD
Attack Vector
Network Adjacent Local Physical
Attack Complexity
Low High
Privileges Required
None Low High
User Interaction
None Required
Scope
Unchanged Changed
Confidentiality
None Low High
Integrity
None Low High
Availability
None Low High
Published to NVD07 Apr 2026 · 12:16 PM
CVSS VectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
SSVC triage · cisa-vulnrichment
Exploitation
poc
Automatable
yes
Technical impact
partial
SSVC asks the questions that actually drive patch urgency: is it being exploited, can attacks be automated, and how total is the impact.
🔗

References & Sources

1
Source URLs (vendor pages, mailing lists, write-ups). Exploit/PoC links are in their own section above to avoid duplication.
SOC and Response
CVE triage
Stack monitoring
Am I affected
IOC triage
KEV catalog
Recently exploited
Daily brief
Change tracking
Detection Engineering
Coverage workspace
Detection coverage
Coverage check
Telemetry ceiling
SIEM query builder
Sigma rules
SIEM rules
YARA rules
Network rules
D3FEND
Threat Hunting
Threat actors
ATT&CK techniques
Attack paths
Indicators
Atomic tests
Red Team and Pentest
Exploitability triage
Recon pack
Attack paths
CAPEC patterns
Adversary emulation
Compliance and GRC
Framework mapping
Control assessment
Audit view
Atlas Search Threat actors Techniques Tools & malware CWE CAPEC KEV catalog Package vulns
About All capabilities Pricing API docs Live status Privacy policy Terms of service
threatengine.sh