Skip to content

← Public intelligence

crates.io package

async-h1

Open actionable advisories and recorded vendor fixes. This public package view has no inventory attached and cannot establish whether your deployment is affected. A vendor fix never resolves your finding; verify your installed version and the source guidance.

Open advisories

2 actionable advisories, newest first. Withdrawn advisories and news are excluded. Coverage is partial.

  1. Medium, CVSS 6.1crates.ioPublished

    Async-h1 request smuggling possible with long unread bodies

    CVE-2020-36202 · GHSA-c8rq-crxj-mj9m

    Affected
    • crates.io async-h1 < 2.3.0
    Fixed in
    2.3.0· Vendor fix available
    Issue
    An issue was discovered in the async-h1 crate before 2.3.0 for Rust. Request smuggling can occur when used behind a reverse proxy.

    Recommended action: Upgrade to 2.3.0 or later, then redeploy and verify.A vendor fix does not resolve your finding until you verify it in your own systems.

    Sources:github.comSource checked Evidence →
  2. Medium, CVSS 6.8crates.ioPublished

    Async-h1 request smuggling possible with long unread bodies

    CVE-2020-26281 · GHSA-4vr9-8cjf-vf9c

    Affected
    • crates.io async-h1 < 2.3.0
    Fixed in
    2.3.0· Vendor fix available
    Issue
    Impact This vulnerability affects any webserver that uses async-h1 behind a reverse proxy, including all such Tide applications. If the server does not read the body of a request which is longer than some buffer length, async-h1 will attempt to read a subsequent request from the body content starting at that offset into the body. One way to exploit this vulnerability would be for an adversary to craft a request such that the body contains a request that would not be noticed by a reverse proxy, allowing it to forge forwarded/x-forwarded headers. If an application trusted the authenticity of these headers, it could be misled by the smuggled request. Another potential concern with this vulnerability is that if a reverse proxy is sending multiple http clients' requests along the same keep-alive connection, it would be possible for the smuggled request to specify a long content and capture another user's request in its body. This content could be captured in a post request to an endpoint…

    Recommended action: Upgrade to 2.3.0 or later, then redeploy and verify.A vendor fix does not resolve your finding until you verify it in your own systems.

    Sources:github.comSource checked Evidence →