AsyncHttpClient: Cookies received over plaintext HTTP can plant, overwrite or delete Secure cookies set over HTTPS
CVSS score
6.8
EPSS probability
—
Risk score
0.7
Published
4 d ago
Resmî kaynaklarda yeterli kanıt bulunamadı. Bu sonuç “yama yok” anlamına gelmez.
Impact on My Inventory
Only the personal products you have added to your account are assessed; an organisation's inventory does not appear here.
Checking session…
Vulnerability description
DayBreach CVE AI Research
CVE-2026-107226 has vendor, distribution, patch and security-source records on file. We can compare them and prepare an explanation linked to the evidence.
### Impact The cookie store ignores the scheme a `Set-Cookie` arrived on. draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-22 (approved to obsolete RFC 6265, in the RFC Editor queue) Section 5.7 requires a user agent to ignore a cookie with the `Secure` attribute unless it arrived over a secure connection (step 13), and to ignore a non-Secure cookie from an insecure connection when it would overlay a Secure cookie the store already holds (step 16). Neither rule is implemented. The only `Secure` handling is on retrieval, where a Secure cookie is not sent over plaintext. So anyone who can answer a plaintext request to a site can set, replace or delete the site's `Secure` cookies, and the next HTTPS request carries the attacker's value back inside TLS: ``` http://example.com -> Set-Cookie: SID=attacker-value; Secure; Path=/ https://example.com -> Cookie: SID=attacker-value ``` This does not need an attacker on the network path. A plaintext host under the same site reaches the HTTPS one by setting a domain cookie: ``` http://insecure.example.com -> Set-Cookie: SID=attacker-value; Secure; Domain=example.com; Path=/ https://bank.example.com -> Cookie: SID=attacker-value ``` A plaintext `Set-Cookie` of the same name, domain and path overwrites a Secure cookie, and one with `Max-Age=0` deletes it. Depending on what the application does with the cookie, this is session fixation into the HTTPS session, an overwritten CSRF token, or the removal of a cookie the site relies on. Unlike GHSA-qjr7-w8pj-pmv9, which can only add a cookie, this replaces or deletes one, hence Integrity: High; the harm lands on the HTTPS site, hence Scope: Changed. ### Affected versions * 3.x: up to and including 3.0.13 * 2.x: from 2.1.0, when the cookie store was introduced, up to and including 2.16.1 ### Patches Fixed in 3.0.14 on the 3.x line. A cookie with the `Secure` attribute is ignored unless the request was secure, and a non-Secure cookie from a request that did not use TLS is ignored when it would overlay a Secure cookie of the same name whose path its own path falls under. A plaintext response can therefore no longer plant, overwrite or delete a `Secure` cookie. When several cookies of one name match a request, the client sends only the first, so the order in which the store returns them decides which one is used. That order is now: on a secure request, cookies received in a secure context (HTTPS, WSS or plaintext loopback) first; then the request host's own cookies before cookies set for a parent domain; then, within one host, longer paths first. A plaintext attacker cannot outrank a cookie the site set over HTTPS by ordering or padding its own cookies, or by setting one before the site sets its own. Plaintext requests to `localhost`, or to an address literal that is a loopback address, count as secure, so a development server that sets `Secure` cookies over `http://localhost` gets them back. This is limited to the cookies such a server set itself: a `Secure` cookie that arrived over HTTPS is never sent over plaintext, loopback included, and a plaintext loopback port cannot overlay it. Numeric spellings that are not address literals, such as `127.0.0.256`, and names under `localhost` are not treated as loopback, because the client resolves them as names. The 2.x line is end of life and will not receive a fix. Upgrade to 3.0.14. ### Workarounds Do not share one `CookieStore` between plaintext and HTTPS origins that are not mutually trusted, including hosts under the same site. Disabling the cookie store also avoids it. ### Details `ThreadSafeCookieStore.add(Uri, Cookie)` reduces the request to its host and path before storing, so the scheme never reaches the code that decides whether to keep a cookie. `get(Uri)` does read it, but only to leave `Secure` cookies out of plaintext requests. A narrower form survives the two storage rules on their own. The step 16 path test is one-way by design, so a plaintext `SID` for `Path=/` is legitimately stored beside a Secure `SID` for `Path=/account`, and both match a request under `/account`. The store returned matching cookies in hash order, and the client keeps only the first cookie of each name when it builds the request (`RequestBuilderBase.addCookieIfUnset`), so an attacker could decide which one was sent, for example by padding one plaintext response with filler cookies. The ordering described above closes it. The fix does not stop an HTTPS host under the same site from setting a domain cookie for a name the request host never sets itself. Only a `__Host-` cookie name prefix prevents that, and the client does not enforce cookie name prefixes. ### Attribution AI-assisted tools were used to support discovery and analysis.
IMPACT: Affected Products and Software
RED HAT CSAF/VEX: Product Impact Check
SCORING: CVSS from Multiple Sources
CVSS Scores
The Common Vulnerability Scoring System is a standardised framework for assessing the severity of vulnerabilities in software and systems. We collect and display CVSS scores from several sources for each CVE.
| SCORE | VERSION | SEVERITY | VECTOR | SOURCE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.8 | CVSS 3.x | — | Vector not published | GitHub Advisory |
| 0.0 | CVSS 4.0 | — | Vector not published | GitHub Advisory |
Patch and Remediation Guide
Solution & Remediation Advisory
İncelenen resmî kaynaklarda yama durumu doğrulanamadı. Bu sonuç “yama yok” anlamına gelmez.
Public exploit and active exploitation status
Verified exploit intelligence
No verified public PoC, exploit repository or Metasploit module has been found for this CVE yet.
Weakness Classification and Attack Patterns (CWE & CAPEC)
CWE - Common Weakness Enumeration
While CVE identifies specific instances of vulnerabilities, CWE categorises the common flaws or weaknesses that can lead to vulnerabilities. CVE-2026-107226 is associated with the following CWEs:
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC) stores attack patterns, which are descriptions of the common attributes and approaches employed by adversaries to exploit the CVE-2026-107226 weaknesses.
Attack Vector and Accessibility
Official Sources and Advisories
Similar Vulnerabilities
Incomplete fix for Apache Log4j vulnerability
Apache Pinot Vulnerable to Authentication Bypass
Vulnerability in N/a Apache Tomcat
Spring Framework Path Traversal vulnerability
Vulnerability in N/a Apache Tomcat
Apache Tomcat h2c request mix-up
Get this vulnerability through the API
Affected products, version ranges, exploitation status and patch information in a single request, with a free key.
curl -H "x-api-key: $DAYBREACH_API_KEY" \ "https://api.enginteksut.com.tr/api/v1/intel/cves/CVE-2026-107226"