GHSA-J6C9-X7QJ-28XF

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-16 14:08 – Updated: 2026-07-21 15:26
VLAI
Summary
hono: AWS Lambda adapter merges multiple `Set-Cookie` headers into one value, dropping cookies on ALB single-header and Lattice
Details

Summary

On AWS Lambda, the ALB single-header response and the VPC Lattice v2 response join multiple Set-Cookie headers into one comma-separated value. Because commas also appear inside cookie attributes (for example Expires dates), clients cannot split the value back into individual cookies and silently drop or misparse them.

Details

Per RFC 6265, each cookie must be its own Set-Cookie header line, and commas may appear inside attribute values. Joining cookies with ", " collides with those commas, producing a value that clients cannot reliably split. Only ALB single-header mode and VPC Lattice v2 are affected; API Gateway v1/v2 and ALB with multi-value headers enabled already use an array and are unaffected.

Impact

A client may receive only one of the cookies, a malformed cookie, or none. Session, CSRF, or preference cookies can silently fail to apply, breaking sessions or forcing re-authentication. This affects applications that set multiple cookies per response and run on AWS Lambda behind an ALB in single-header mode (the default) or VPC Lattice v2.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "hono"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "4.12.25"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-54287"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-116"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-16T14:08:40Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-22T18:16:47Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\nOn AWS Lambda, the ALB single-header response and the VPC Lattice v2 response join multiple `Set-Cookie` headers into one comma-separated value. Because commas also appear inside cookie attributes (for example `Expires` dates), clients cannot split the value back into individual cookies and silently drop or misparse them.\n\n### Details\n\nPer RFC 6265, each cookie must be its own `Set-Cookie` header line, and commas may appear inside attribute values. Joining cookies with `\", \"` collides with those commas, producing a value that clients cannot reliably split. Only ALB single-header mode and VPC Lattice v2 are affected; API Gateway v1/v2 and ALB with multi-value headers enabled already use an array and are unaffected.\n\n### Impact\n\nA client may receive only one of the cookies, a malformed cookie, or none. Session, CSRF, or preference cookies can silently fail to apply, breaking sessions or forcing re-authentication. This affects applications that set multiple cookies per response and run on AWS Lambda behind an ALB in single-header mode (the default) or VPC Lattice v2.",
  "id": "GHSA-j6c9-x7qj-28xf",
  "modified": "2026-07-21T15:26:46Z",
  "published": "2026-06-16T14:08:40Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/security/advisories/GHSA-j6c9-x7qj-28xf"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-54287"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "hono: AWS Lambda adapter merges multiple `Set-Cookie` headers into one value, dropping cookies on ALB single-header and Lattice"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Events included in the timeline

Loading timeline…


    Loading…

    Loading…

    Loading…

    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.