Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

Apache Tomcat: Request smuggling via invalid chunk extension

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2026-24880CWE-444

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
7.5
EPSS
0.7% Top 47%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2026-04-09
Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') vulnerability in Apache Tomcat via invalid chunk extension. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.18, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.52,… More

Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') vulnerability in Apache Tomcat via invalid chunk extension. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.18, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.52, from 9.0.0.M1 through 9.0.115, from 8.5.0 through 8.5.100, from 7.0.0 through 7.0.109. Other, unsupported versions may also be affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.20, 10.1.52 or 9.0.116, which fix the issue.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2026-24880: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
High · 7.5 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of integrity.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablySerious impact
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.
    Unchanged
  • Confidentiality impactNo data is exposed.
    None
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impactThe component keeps working normally.
    None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationNone

CISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.

AutomatableYes

Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.

Technical impactPartial

A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.

Public exploits

None found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

  1. 2026-04-09
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2026-09-16
    F5 rule names it
    Earliest entry we can see is an update

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)1 quoteRule published

Named by 2026-09-16; the first entry is an update, so the rule may be older.

2026-09-16Updated200020232Source
Updated: signature 200020232 "Chunk-Extension Request Smuggling" (HTTP Parser Attack, risk High), systems: ASP.NET, Other Web Server, Apache Tomcat. References: CVE-2025-55315, CVE-2025-22871, CVE-2026-24880.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.