elixir-mint/mint · Security
mint: Content-Length header accepts non-RFC "+" sign prefix
- GHSA ID
- GHSA-mjqx-c6f6-7rc2
- CVE ID
- CVE-2026-49753
- Severity
- medium
- Published
- Updated
- CVSS v4
- 6.3 · CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N
Description
Summary
Mint's HTTP/1 client accepts Content-Length header values with a leading + sign (e.g. +0, +123), which RFC 7230 forbids (Content-Length = 1*DIGIT). On a connection shared with a strict fronting proxy or load balancer, this parser disagreement is a response-smuggling primitive: the proxy frames the body one way, Mint frames it another, and bytes meant for one response leak into the next consumer's response stream.
Details
'Elixir.Mint.HTTP1.Parse':content_length_header/1 in lib/mint/http1/parse.ex parses the header value with Integer.parse/1. By design, Integer.parse/1 accepts an optional + or - sign prefix. The length >= 0 guard rules out negatives, but inputs such as "+0", "+123", or "+1" pass through and are returned as valid lengths.
A strict proxy or load balancer rejects or reframes Content-Length: +0\r\n, while Mint silently treats it as 0. When Mint reuses the socket (keep-alive, pipelining, or any pooled connection) and the connection is shared with a proxy that frames the same bytes differently, trailing bytes the proxy attributes to response N are attributed by Mint to response N+1. Across trust boundaries (shared pools, multi-tenant fronting) this enables response smuggling.
PoC
- Stand up a raw TCP server that returns
HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\nContent-Length: +0\r\nConnection: keep-alive\r\n\r\n<smuggled bytes>. - Connect a Mint HTTP/1 client to the server and issue a request.
- Observe that Mint reports the response as status 200 with
Content-Length: "+0"and an empty body, leaving the smuggled bytes sitting in the socket buffer for the next response.
Impact
Response-smuggling / request-response desync primitive in Mint's HTTP/1 client parser. Anyone using Mint (directly or via Finch, Tesla's Mint adapter, Req, etc.) to talk through a shared or pooled connection where a fronting proxy enforces RFC 7230 strictly while Mint does not is exposed. The attacker is the response producer (a malicious or compromised upstream, or anything that can inject bytes into a shared origin response); exploitation into a cross-request data leak additionally requires the deployment to share a Mint connection across trust boundaries.
Resources
CWEs
- CWE-444 · Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')
References
- https://github.com/elixir-mint/mint/security/advisories/GHSA-mjqx-c6f6-7rc2 ↗
- https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-49753 ↗
- https://github.com/elixir-mint/mint/commit/47e48027480228e4e32a0b4df39db497b4804921 ↗
- https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-49753.html ↗
- https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-49753 ↗
- https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-mjqx-c6f6-7rc2 ↗