HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorKeep agent security open: sponsor a project, place a banner, or fund a security initiative.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 107226 asynchttpclient cookies received over plaintext
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Medium · CVSS 6.8CVE-2026-107226GHSA-P2JM-6HJ6-9RJG

AsyncHttpClient: Cookies received over plaintext HTTP can plant, overwrite or delete Secure cookies set over HTTPSCVE-2026-107226

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-107226 records a Medium severity (CVSS 6.8) vulnerability in AsyncHttpClient: Cookies received over plaintext HTTP can plant, overwrite or delete Secure cookies set over HTTPS. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps org.asynchttpclient:async-http-client (maven), org.asynchttpclient:async-http-client (maven). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Oct 8, 2026Updated Oct 8, 2026Source checked Oct 8, 2026First seen by HOL Oct 8, 2026Material review Oct 8, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Record context

Vulnerability class
CSRF
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-384, CWE-693
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Oct 8, 2026
References
4 linked sources
Open source record

Key facts

Risk
Medium · CVSS 6.8
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
2 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 6.8. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps org.asynchttpclient:async-http-client (maven), org.asynchttpclient:async-http-client (maven). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
org.asynchttpclient:async-http-clientmaven>=2.1.0,<=2.16.1Not reported
org.asynchttpclient:async-http-clientmaven>=3.0.0,<=3.0.133.0.14

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for org.asynchttpclient:async-http-client, org.asynchttpclient:async-http-client.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update org.asynchttpclient:async-http-client to 3.0.14 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Oct 8, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 8, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Oct 8, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source description

### 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.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Related CVEs

  • Coraza: jsDecode Off-by-One in Octal Escape Handling Enables WAF BypassAlso CWE-693
  • FFmpeg before 8.1.3 HLS Demuxer Security Check Bypass via parse_playlist()Also CWE-693