ubuntu-cve-2019-16785
Vulnerability from osv_ubuntu
Published
2019-12-20 23:15
Modified
2025-10-24 04:47
Summary
Details
Waitress through version 1.3.1 implemented a "MAY" part of the RFC7230 which states: "Although the line terminator for the start-line and header fields is the sequence CRLF, a recipient MAY recognize a single LF as a line terminator and ignore any preceding CR." Unfortunately if a front-end server does not parse header fields with an LF the same way as it does those with a CRLF it can lead to the front-end and the back-end server parsing the same HTTP message in two different ways. This can lead to a potential for HTTP request smuggling/splitting whereby Waitress may see two requests while the front-end server only sees a single HTTP message. This issue is fixed in Waitress 1.4.0.
Severity
7.1 (High)
7.5 (High)
N/A (UNKNOWN)
References
{
"affected": [
{
"ecosystem_specific": {
"binaries": [
{
"binary_name": "python-waitress",
"binary_version": "0.8.10-1"
},
{
"binary_name": "python3-waitress",
"binary_version": "0.8.10-1"
}
]
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Ubuntu:16.04:LTS",
"name": "waitress",
"purl": "pkg:deb/ubuntu/waitress@0.8.10-1?arch=source\u0026distro=xenial"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"0.8.9-2ubuntu1",
"0.8.10-1"
]
},
{
"ecosystem_specific": {
"binaries": [
{
"binary_name": "python-waitress",
"binary_version": "1.0.1-1"
},
{
"binary_name": "python3-waitress",
"binary_version": "1.0.1-1"
}
]
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Ubuntu:18.04:LTS",
"name": "waitress",
"purl": "pkg:deb/ubuntu/waitress@1.0.1-1?arch=source\u0026distro=bionic"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"1.0.1-1"
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"details": "Waitress through version 1.3.1 implemented a \"MAY\" part of the RFC7230 which states: \"Although the line terminator for the start-line and header fields is the sequence CRLF, a recipient MAY recognize a single LF as a line terminator and ignore any preceding CR.\" Unfortunately if a front-end server does not parse header fields with an LF the same way as it does those with a CRLF it can lead to the front-end and the back-end server parsing the same HTTP message in two different ways. This can lead to a potential for HTTP request smuggling/splitting whereby Waitress may see two requests while the front-end server only sees a single HTTP message. This issue is fixed in Waitress 1.4.0.",
"id": "UBUNTU-CVE-2019-16785",
"modified": "2025-10-24T04:47:53Z",
"published": "2019-12-20T23:15:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "REPORT",
"url": "https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2019-16785"
},
{
"type": "REPORT",
"url": "https://docs.pylonsproject.org/projects/waitress/en/latest/#security-fixes"
},
{
"type": "REPORT",
"url": "https://github.com/Pylons/waitress/security/advisories/GHSA-pg36-wpm5-g57p"
},
{
"type": "REPORT",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2019-16785"
}
],
"related": [],
"schema_version": "1.7.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "low",
"type": "Ubuntu"
}
],
"upstream": [
"CVE-2019-16785"
]
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
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.
Loading…
Loading…