There are 12 open security issues in trixie.
11 important issues:
- CVE-2024-7708:
For requests that have a body, but reading the body may end up in reading 0 bytes, there is a buffer leak. This is particularly the case for 100-Continue, but any request where the network is slow can leak.
- CVE-2026-1605:
In Eclipse Jetty, versions 12.0.0-12.0.31 and 12.1.0-12.0.5, class GzipHandler exposes a vulnerability when a compressed HTTP request, with Content-Encoding: gzip, is processed and the corresponding response is not compressed. This happens because the JDK Inflater is allocated for decompressing the request, but it is not released because the release mechanism is tied to the compressed response. In this case, since the response is not compressed, the release mechanism does not trigger, causing the leak.
- CVE-2026-2332:
In Eclipse Jetty, the HTTP/1.1 parser is vulnerable to request smuggling when chunk extensions are used, similar to the "funky chunks" techniques outlined here: * https://w4ke.info/2025/06/18/funky-chunks.html * https://w4ke.info/2025/10/29/funky-chunks-2.html Jetty terminates chunk extension parsing at \r\n inside quoted strings instead of treating this as an error. POST / HTTP/1.1 Host: localhost Transfer-Encoding: chunked 1;ext="val X 0 GET /smuggled HTTP/1.1 ... Note how the chunk extension does not close the double quotes, and it is able to inject a smuggled request.
- CVE-2026-5795:
In Eclipse Jetty, the class JASPIAuthenticator initiates the authentication checks, which set two ThreadLocal variable. Upon returning from the initial checks, there are conditions that cause an early return from the JASPIAuthenticator code without clearing those ThreadLocals. A subsequent request using the same thread inherits the ThreadLocal values, leading to a broken access control and privilege escalation.
- CVE-2026-6790:
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.
- CVE-2026-8384:
In Eclipse Jetty, an HTTP URI of this form: /public;/../admin/secret.txt results in an unresolved path of: /public/../admin/secret.txt instead of the expected: /admin/secret.txt Jetty itself is not affected, as it will not serve the secret.txt file because it will not pass the alias checker (only resolved resources are served). However, web applications that rely on resolved paths being provided by Jetty may be confused when receiving an unresolved path.
- CVE-2026-10050:
In Eclipse Jetty, the Digest authentication server-side component uses ISO-8859-1 to encode the password as bytes. This was done because the initial specification for HTTP did not specify explicitly a charset, and it was assumed to be ISO-8859-1 for historical reasons. If the password contains characters that cannot be represented in ISO-8859-1, they are silently replaced by `?`. This happens with passwords that contain Chinese, Cyrillic or Greek characters, for example: `αβ123` converts to `??123`. An attacker can send a request with a digest `Authorization` header crafted with a password made of only `?` characters; the server would match any password of the same length that contains non-ISO-8859-1 characters. Recent HTTP Digest [RFC-7616](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7616) supports a `charset` parameters that defaults to UTF-8 that allows for correct encoding/decoding of passwords.
- CVE-2026-10051:
In Eclipse Jetty, a first HTTP/1.1 request with trailers causes the server to retain the trailers in subsequent requests performed over the same connection. Subsequent request that do not have trailers report the trailers of the first request. Subsequent request that do have trailers report the union of trailers of the first request and the current request.
- CVE-2026-12611:
A client may issue HTTP/2 requests to a Jetty server that result in blocking writes that are never unblocked, eventually causing all threads to be blocked and the whole server to become unresponsive. This is caused by a race condition in the server when handling RST_STREAM frames and GOAWAY frames sent by the client. The race condition "resets" the HTTP2Flusher.terminated, previously set to a non-null value, to the null value, allowing entries to be enqueued in the flusher that however will never be processed. These unprocessed entries are the ones that would unblock the write-blocked threads.
- CVE-2026-19203:
A client may issue specially crafted HTTP/1.1 chunked requests to a Jetty server that cause Jetty and an intermediary proxy to interpret different request boundaries, potentially resulting in HTTP request smuggling. This is caused by Jetty accepting a lone LF character as a terminator in parts of chunked request parsing. Depending on the Jetty version and configured HTTP compliance mode, this may occur in chunk extensions, chunk data termination, or trailer termination.
- CVE-2026-19204:
A client may send a WebSocket frame with an unknown opcode and a very large declared payload length, causing Jetty to attempt a large memory allocation and potentially exhaust the JVM heap. This occurs when auto-fragmentation is enabled, as unknown opcodes bypass the normal maximum frame size handling and payload allocation occurs before the opcode is validated.
1 issue left for the package maintainer to handle:
- CVE-2025-11143:
(needs triaging)
The Jetty URI parser has some key differences to other common parsers when evaluating invalid or unusual URIs. Differential parsing of URIs in systems using multiple components may result in security by-pass. For example a component that enforces a black list may interpret the URIs differently from one that generates a response. At the very least, differential parsing may divulge implementation details.
You can find information about how to handle this issue in the security team's documentation.
![[bug history graph]](https://qa.debian.org/data/bts/graphs/j/jetty12.png){kind=link}