HighCVE-2026-105299

Cloudflare Https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora: security vulnerability (CVE-2026-105299)

Published 20.10.2026Last modified 20.10.2026Sources: CVE.org

What is affected, what to do

Update Cloudflare Https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora to version 0.9.0.

Affected: Cloudflare Https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora lt 0.1.0..0.9.0
Fixed in: Cloudflare Https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora 0.9.0

Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability

Metrics

8.7

Priority

XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.

Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v3

8.7

CVSS v3

Severity High on the scale from 0 to 10.

Source: CVE.org

0.4 %

EPSS score

Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.

Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 36.6

Show all metrics

Severity: High
Priority (0–325) The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first? Read in glossary: 84.22 Methodology
Exploit maturity An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack. Read in glossary: no public PoC known
XIEM Effective CVSS XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command. Read in glossary: 8.7 Methodology
CVSS v3 CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions. Read in glossary: 8.7
EPSS score The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“. Read in glossary: 0.4 %; Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
EPSS percentile The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking. Read in glossary: 36.6; High — this CVE ranks above the median of all CVEs scored today (rank ≥ 36%).
KEV status The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching. Read in glossary: —
Published: 20.10.2026

Detection rules

No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.

Classification under NIS2 and CRA

Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.

NIS2 NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management. Read in glossary: High technical severity: assess and remediate the vulnerability in vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2 and document the decision.
CRA The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates. Read in glossary: From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security. Read in glossary: Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.

Description

Summary Before version 0.9.0, the HTTP/1 upstream path in pingora-proxy passed the downstream request through upstream_request_filter and wrote it to the upstream without removing the client's Connection header, other hop-by-hop headers, or the headers Connection nominated, although RFC 9110 Section 7.6.1 requires intermediaries to remove them. The HTTP/2 upstream path already removed Connection and related HTTP/1-specific headers. A client could therefore nominate a header that the application adds in upstream_request_filter (for example, Connection: keep-alive, X-Forwarded-For). A downstream HTTP/1 intermediary that honors Connection would then strip the Pingora-added header before it reached the origin. Impact Specifically affects chained deployments where an HTTP/1 intermediary between Pingora and the origin processes Connection nominations (for example, Go's net/http/httputil.ReverseProxy) and the origin trusts headers added by that intermediary (for example, X-Forwarded-For for IP-based authorization). A remote, unauthenticated attacker can have those headers removed, potentially bypassing authorization. The reporter demonstrated access to an IP-restricted endpoint using X-Forwarded-For for IP validation on the origin. This is the same class of issue as CVE-2022-31813 in Apache HTTP Server. Note that Cloudflare CDN customers were unaffected, as no such chained deployment as described above exists with internal Pingora services, and Connection headers are sanitized before arriving at Pingora gateways. Mitigation: * Upgrade to pingora 0.9.0 or later. By default, Pingora now removes hop-by-hop and Connection-nominated headers from upstream requests, and rejects requests whose Connection header nominates Host, X-Forwarded-For, X-Forwarded-Host, X-Forwarded-Proto, or a pseudo-header. This is controlled by PeerOptions::http_upstream_request_policy (HttpUpstreamRequestPolicy). Fix commits: https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora/commit/28c18e6b6b04dd0bd937234e5950049e6d74cded , https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora/commit/ca23f1668eca8e78be7ba62ef0edbd458b40eeee * Do not use HttpUpstreamRequestPolicy::preserve() if the origin relies on headers added by Pingora; it restores the old passthrough behavior. * If you cannot upgrade: in upstream_request_filter, remove the Connection header and every header it nominates before adding trusted headers.

Source: cvelistv5, NVD (NIST)

Affected products

The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.

Affected products
		Affected versions	Fixed in
Cloudflare	https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora	`0.1.0 – < 0.9.0`	`0.9.0`

Vendors and products

Cloudflare Https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora

References & sources

github.comcloudflare/pingora

Changes to this CVE

Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).

20.10.2026Record modifiedCISA ADP

CISA assessment (SSVC): exploitation: none known, automatable: no

Weakness type: CWE-444

Show 2 original changes

Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
Type	Action	Before	After
Weakness type (CWE)	added	—	CWE-444
SSVC assessment	added	—	{"id":"CVE-2026-105299","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"none"},{"automatable":"no"},{"technicalImpact":"total"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-10-20T19:18:45.445676Z"}

Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

20.10.2026Receivedcloudflare.com

CVSS V3.1: AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

Description added or changed

New references:

https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora

Show 4 original changes

Individual changes of this event as published by NVD
Type	Action	Before	After
Description	added	—	Summary Before version 0.9.0, the HTTP/1 upstream path in pingora-proxy passed the downstream request through upstream_request_filter and wrote it to the upstream without removing the client's Connection header, other hop-by-hop headers, or the headers Connection nominated, although RFC 9110 Section 7.6.1 requires intermediaries to remove them. The HTTP/2 upstream path already removed Connection and related HTTP/1-specific headers. A client could therefore nominate a header that the application adds in upstream_request_filter (for example, Connection: keep-alive, X-Forwarded-For). A downstream HTTP/1 intermediary that honors Connection would then strip the Pingora-added header before it reached the origin. Impact Specifically affects chained deployments where an HTTP/1 intermediary between Pingora and the origin processes Connection nominations (for example, Go's net/http/httputil.ReverseProxy) and the origin trusts headers added by that intermediary (for example, X-Forwarded-For for IP-based authorization). A remote, unauthenticated attacker can have those headers removed, potentially bypassing authorization. The reporter demonstrated access to an IP-restricted endpoint using X-Forwarded-For for IP validation on the origin. This is the same class of issue as CVE-2022-31813 in Apache HTTP Server. Note that Cloudflare CDN customers were unaffected, as no such chained deployment as described above exists with internal Pingora services, and Connection headers are sanitized before arriving at Pingora gateways. Mitigation: * Upgrade to pingora 0.9.0 or later. By default, Pingora now removes hop-by-hop and Connection-nominated headers from upstream requests, and rejects requests whose Connection header nominates Host, X-Forwarded-For, X-Forwarded-Host, X-Forwarded-Proto, or a pseudo-header. This is controlled by PeerOptions::http_upstream_request_policy (HttpUpstreamRequestPolicy). Fix commits: https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora/commit/28c18e6b6b04dd0bd937234e5950049e6d74cded , https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora/commit/ca23f1668eca8e78be7ba62ef0edbd458b40eeee * Do not use HttpUpstreamRequestPolicy::preserve() if the origin relies on headers added by Pingora; it restores the old passthrough behavior. * If you cannot upgrade: in upstream_request_filter, remove the Connection header and every header it nominates before adding trusted headers.
CVSS	added	—	AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Affected versions (publisher)	added	—	New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/105xxx/CVE-2026-105299.json">CVE-2026-105299</a>
Reference	added	—	https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora

Source identifier: cna@cloudflare.com

Embed badge

Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.

<a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-105299"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-105299.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-105299 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>