CVE-2025-58056
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
Netty is vulnerable to request smuggling due to incorrect parsing of chunk extensions
rank 23 = 0 + 19 + 0 + 4 + 0
rank@v1 · backlog
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.00710 · without this subject the record ranks 23
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 7.5, from NVD · without this subject the record ranks 4
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 23
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
2 products in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 19
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 23
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
This record is one instance of CWE-444, inconsistent interpretation of http requests ('http request/response smuggling'). The index holds 449 prior instances of this class, 5 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. taxonomy@v1
Sources disagree here.
Both shown, dated. We don't pick winners. disagreement-rules@v1
Running netty? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (free with an account: one stack of three products)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
Or open an investigation: an incident or a near miss on this CVE, kept with its evidence where anyone in your organisation can find it.
Choose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Show full BOD 26-04 deadline
CISA has not scored it, so the directive's own defaults apply: automatable no, technical impact total. Calendar days from the KEV listing or from when you find it on a system, whichever is first. Federal agencies are bound from 7 Dec 2026, and contracts often carry it to suppliers. The directive and its table
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
$8,520 = $4.99M incident cost x 0.24048551839932833 exposure x 0.0071 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
What it is stated by the CNA
Netty is an asynchronous event-driven network application framework for development of maintainable high performance protocol servers and clients. In versions 4.1.124.Final, and 4.2.0.Alpha3 through 4.2.4.Final, Netty incorrectly accepts standalone newline characters (LF) as a chunk-size line terminator, regardless of a preceding carriage return (CR), instead of requiring CRLF per HTTP/1.1 standards. When combined with reverse proxies that parse LF differently (treating it as part of the chunk extension), attackers can craft requests that the proxy sees as one request but Netty processes as two, enabling request smuggling attacks. This is fixed in versions 4.1.125.Final and 4.2.5.Final. receipt
NVD's analysis a second authority
- severity
- 7.5 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
- weakness
- CWE-444
- affected versions
- netty < 4.1.125; netty >= 4.2.0 < 4.2.5
- also scored by
- security-advisories@github.com 2.9 CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
The CNA scored it 2.9 and NVD 7.5. Both are shown because both were published; we do not pick one.
check it yourself github.com github.com github.com github.com github.com datatracker.ietf.org +1 morereceipt
Movement the material steps
Show all 32 observations
32 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt
The full biography
The record had been public for 1 year, 1 month when this index was last written.
The pattern, elsewhere
This record is one instance of CWE-444, inconsistent interpretation of http requests ('http request/response smuggling'). The index holds 449 prior instances of this class, 5 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. cwe-consequences@4.20
"Matches n of m" counts the attributes the two records can both be compared on: the CVSS metrics they share a version of, any weakness class beyond this one, and the vendor. fit-rules@v1
449 records in this class held. The six above are drawn from the ones CISA has listed as exploited, ranked by how much of the record matches this one. That is why every one of them is KEV-listed: the pool is, so the colour on those spokes says nothing the pool has not already said.
No curated product neighbourhood is held for this product, so the records above are the nearest this index can name. The neighbourhood table covers a small set of products and is extended by hand.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
No record cites this identifier and it carries no alias. Its defect family is below.
Its defect family
netty
Of the 10 records in this family, this is the only one whose title names vulnerable incorrect chunk.
Grouped by shared product and weakness, not by shared vulnerability. Each record's own state is on its own page.
Family membership: held values
This record is one of a group, and the group's page describes all of them. This page is kept and dated, and the defect family's own page is the one we offer for indexing: the whole group.
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2025-58056.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.