CVE-2026-6790: Input Validation

Published Jul 14, 2026
·
Updated

Summary

Jetty currently accepts HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 requests where the regular Host header and the pseudo-header :authority do not match. As a result, the same request can carry two different host identities through Jetty:

- logic based on HttpURI / Request.getServerName(request) uses :authority - logic based on raw request headers continues to use Host

This creates a host/authority confusion condition that can break security assumptions in higher layers.

Jetty already performs an explicit authority/Host consistency check on the HTTP/1.1 path, but equivalent validation is missing on the HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 paths.

Security Impact

This issue is not inherently remote code execution, but it can become security-relevant in deployments that rely on the request host for security-sensitive decisions, including:

- host-based access control - virtual host isolation - multi-tenant routing by hostname - login/logout/callback URL construction - reverse proxy and forwarded-header trust chains - auditing, cache keys, and absolute URL generation

Potential consequences include:

- bypass of host-based ACLs - virtual host or tenant isolation failures - incorrect or attacker-influenced redirect/callback targets - inconsistent proxy/downstream interpretation of the original target host - misleading logs and audit records

Technical Root Cause

1. On the HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 metadata builder paths:

- :authority is parsed separately into authority/URI state - Host is preserved as a normal request header - the two values are not compared for consistency

2. On the HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 server entry paths:

- Jetty calls ComplianceUtils.verify(httpCompliance, requestMetaData, listener) - this verification does not enforce MISMATCHEDAUTHORITY

3. On the HTTP/1.1 path:

- Jetty explicitly checks whether authority and Host match - mismatches are rejected by default

Relevant Code Locations

HTTP/2 metadata builder:

- jetty-core/jetty-http2/jetty-http2-hpack/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http2/hpack/internal/MetaDataBuilder.java

HTTP/3 metadata builder:

- jetty-core/jetty-http3/jetty-http3-qpack/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http3/qpack/internal/metadata/MetaDataBuilder.java

HTTP/2 server entry:

- jetty-core/jetty-http2/jetty-http2-server/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http2/server/internal/HttpStreamOverHTTP2.java

HTTP/3 server entry:

- jetty-core/jetty-http3/jetty-http3-server/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http3/server/internal/HttpStreamOverHTTP3.java

Shared HTTP compliance verification:

- jetty-core/jetty-http/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http/ComplianceUtils.java

HTTP/1.1 authority/Host consistency check:

- jetty-core/jetty-server/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/server/internal/HttpConnection.java

Defined but not enforced on H2/H3:

- jetty-core/jetty-http/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/http/HttpCompliance.java - violation: MISMATCHEDAUTHORITY

Reproduction

I reproduced this on local Jetty 12.1.9-SNAPSHOT source.

Minimal reproduction steps:

1. Start a Jetty HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 test server. 2. Send a request with: - :authority = localhost:<port> - Host = evil.example:<port> 3. In the request handler, inspect both: - Request.getServerName(request) - request.getHeaders().get(HttpHeader.HOST) 4. Observe whether Jetty rejects the request or allows both values to remain visible. Observed result: - HTTP/2: request is accepted and returns 200 - HTTP/3: request is accepted and returns 200 - the server can observe both: - serverName=localhost - hostHeader=evil.example:<port>

This shows that a single attacker-controlled request can preserve two conflicting host interpretations inside Jetty.

Tests Used

HTTP/2 rejection test:

- org.eclipse.jetty.http2.tests.HTTP2Test#testRejectMismatchedHostHeaderAndAuthority

HTTP/2 exploitability test:

- org.eclipse.jetty.http2.tests.HTTP2Test#testMismatchedHostHeaderAndAuthoritySplitsAuthorityFromHostHeader

HTTP/3 rejection test:

- org.eclipse.jetty.http3.tests.HandlerClientServerTest#testRejectMismatchedHostHeaderAndAuthority

HTTP/3 exploitability test:

- org.eclipse.jetty.http3.tests.HandlerClientServerTest#testMismatchedHostHeaderAndAuthoritySplitsAuthorityFromHostHeader

Observed behavior:

- both rejection tests fail because Jetty returns 200 instead of 400 - both exploitability tests pass, confirming that Jetty exposes different host values to different layers

Project-Internal Evidence of Real Impact

Examples:

- jetty-openid uses Request.getServerName(request) to construct redirect URLs - jetty-ee11-proxy uses the raw Host header when building Forwarded

This indicates that the issue is not merely theoretical: Jetty’s own ecosystem already contains code paths where different host sources are used for different purposes.

Affected Version

Confirmed affected version:

- 12.1.9-SNAPSHOT

Other versions may also be affected if they share the same HTTP/2 / HTTP/3 request construction and compliance-validation logic. I have not yet completed a historical version matrix and would recommend confirming exact affected ranges from Jetty’s branch history.

Suggested Fix

Recommend adding HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 validation equivalent to the existing HTTP/1.1 authority/Host consistency check:

- if both :authority and regular Host are present - normalize and compare them - if they do not match, reject the request with 400 Bad Request - route the failure through the existing MISMATCHEDAUTHORITY compliance mechanism

Also adding explicit HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 regression coverage for this case.

Disclosure Status

- not publicly disclosed - no public issue filed - shared only privately with the Jetty security contacts

Other sources

In Eclipse Jetty, for HTTP/1, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 requests, there is no strict check that the request authority (host and port) matches what provided in the Host header (if present).

This was not enforced in earlier HTTP RFC (for example, in RFC 2616), but it is in the latest RFC (9110 and 9112).

This mismatch can cause a number of problems that may be classified as vulnerabilities such as:

URI constructions (for example, for redirects -- this is typical for login pages)

Virtual host selection

Reverse proxying

Misleading logs

Etc.

Given that the latest RFCs require that request authority and Host header must match, Jetty should enforce this invariant.

NVD

Affected Software

11 affected componentsFixes available
Eclipse Jetty
Eclipse Jetty>=9.4.0<9.4.61
Eclipse Jetty>=10.0.0<10.0.29
Eclipse Jetty>=11.0.0<11.0.29
Eclipse Jetty>=12.0.0<12.0.35
Eclipse Jetty>=12.1.0<12.1.9
maven/org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server>=12.1.0<=12.1.8
12.1.9
maven/org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server>=12.0.0<=12.0.34
12.0.35
maven/org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server>=11.0.0<=11.0.26
maven/org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server>=10.0.0<=10.0.26
maven/org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server>=9.4.0.v20161208<=9.4.58.v20250814

Remediation

Recommended actions to resolve this vulnerability, in priority order.

  1. Upgrade

    Upgrade maven/org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Fixed in 12.1.9
  2. Upgrade

    Upgrade maven/org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Fixed in 12.0.35
  3. Upgrade

    Upgrade to a fixed release to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Fixed in 12.1.9-SNAPSHOT

Event History

Jul 14, 2026
CVE Published
via MITRE·08:51 AM
Data Sourced
via MITRE·08:51 AM
DescriptionSeverityWeakness
Data Sourced
via NVD·09:16 AM
DescriptionSeverityWeaknessAffected Software
Jul 22, 2026
Advisory Published
via GitHub·10:56 PM
Data Sourced
via GitHub·10:56 PM
DescriptionSeverityWeaknessAffected Software
Free Weekly Intel

Don't miss critical vulnerabilities

Join thousands of security professionals who receive our weekly digest of trending CVEs, zero-days, and exploited vulnerabilities.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Frequently Asked Questions

1

What is the severity of CVE-2026-6790?

The severity of CVE-2026-6790 is medium with a score of 5.3.

2

How do I fix CVE-2026-6790?

To fix CVE-2026-6790, ensure that the request authority strictly matches the Host header in Eclipse Jetty.

3

What software is affected by CVE-2026-6790?

CVE-2026-6790 affects Eclipse Jetty, specifically for HTTP/1, HTTP/2, and HTTP/3 requests.

4

What are the implications of CVE-2026-6790?

The implications of CVE-2026-6790 involve potential security risks due to inadequate validation of request authority against the Host header.

5

When was CVE-2026-6790 published?

CVE-2026-6790 was published on July 14, 2026.

Contact

SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
132 Wickham Terrace
Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, Australia
info@secalerts.co
By using SecAlerts services, you agree to our services end-user license agreement. This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA and governed by the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. All names, logos, and brands of products are owned by their respective owners, and any usage of these names, logos, and brands for identification purposes only does not imply endorsement. If you possess any content that requires removal, please get in touch with us.
© 2026 SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
ABN: 70 645 966 203, ACN: 645 966 203