HAARG HTTP::Tiny: HTTP Request/Response Splitting (CVE-2026-7010)
Published Last modified Sources: Debian LTS, CVE.org, EUVD
What is affected, what to do
HTTP::Tiny versions before 0.093 for Perl do not validate CRLF in HTTP request lines or control field header values. The unvalidated inputs are the method and URI in the request line, the URL host that becomes the `Host:` header, and HTTP/1.1 control data field values.
Update HAARG HTTP::Tiny to version 0.093.
- Affected
- HAARG HTTP::Tiny
lt *..0.093
- HAARG HTTP::Tiny
- Fixed in
- HAARG HTTP::Tiny
0.093
- HAARG HTTP::Tiny
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
6.5
Priority
XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: NVD, CVSS v3
6.5
CVSS v3
Severity Medium on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: Debian LTS, CVE.org, EUVD
0.2 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 13.3
Show all metrics
- Severity
- Medium
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- 51.29 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- 6.5 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- 6.5
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- 0.2 %
- 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- 13.3
- Elevated — this CVE ranks above at least 10% of all CVEs scored today.
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
CWE
CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.
Read in glossary- CWE-113
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- Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
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
HTTP::Tiny versions before 0.093 for Perl do not validate CRLF in HTTP request lines or control field header values. The unvalidated inputs are the method and URI in the request line, the URL host that becomes the `Host:` header, and HTTP/1.1 control data field values. An attacker who controls one of these inputs, for example a user supplied URL passed to a webhook or URL fetch endpoint, can inject additional headers and smuggle requests to the upstream server.
Source: Debian LTS Advisories, NVD (NIST), cvelistv5, CVE.org (MITRE), ENISA EUVD
Affected products
The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.
| Affected versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| HAARG | HTTP::Tiny |
|
|
Vendors and products
Affected operating systems
| Linux | debian | perl | bookworm |
Weakness classes (CWE)
CWE-113Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting')
Variant
The product receives data from an HTTP agent/component (e.g., web server, proxy, browser, etc.), but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CR and LF characters before the data is included in outgoing HTTP headers.
Entry at MITRE CWE-113
References & sources
- github.comPerl-Toolchain-Gang/HTTP-Tiny/commit/d73c7651e82ace02693842df55…Patch
- metacpan.orgrelease/HAARG/HTTP-Tiny-0.093-TRIAL/changesRelease notes
- openwall.comlists/oss-security/2026/05/11/17
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).
One NVD translation into another language is hidden.
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-2026-7010"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-7010.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-7010 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>