Reply FromApplication · Fastify

CVE-2023-51701

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-01-08
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 9.6.0 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
fastify-reply-from is a Fastify plugin to forward the current HTTP request to another server. A reverse proxy server built with `@fastify/reply-from` could misinterpret the incoming body by passing an header `ContentType: application/json ; charset=utf-8`. This can lead to bypass of security checks. This vulnerability has been patched in '@fastify/reply-from` version 9.6.0.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · high confidence

The @fastify/reply-from plugin for Fastify incorrectly parses the Content-Type header when set to 'application/json ; charset=utf-8' (with a space before the semicolon). This malformed header causes the plugin to misinterpret the incoming HTTP body, allowing attackers to bypass security checks that rely on proper Content-Type validation.

MitigationUpgrade @fastify/reply-from to version 9.6.0 or later to patch the Content-Type parsing vulnerability. Review all incoming request handling code to ensure proper header validation is in place.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.

NVD · CPE data
Reply FromApplication
Affected:< 9.6.0

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify @fastify/reply-from is installed
    Check your package.json dependencies or run 'npm list @fastify/reply-from' to see if the plugin is present in your project
    Affected if @fastify/reply-from appears in your dependencies
  2. Check the installed version
    Run 'npm list @fastify/reply-from' or inspect node_modules/@fastify/reply-from/package.json to find the exact version number
    Affected if The version is lower than 9.6.0
  3. Identify Content-Type header processing
    Search your codebase for places where incoming request Content-Type headers are validated or used for security decisions (e.g., content-type checks, allowlist logic, parsing decisions)
    Affected if Your code performs security checks based on the Content-Type header value
  4. Test for vulnerable header parsing
    Send a request with 'Content-Type: application/json ; charset=utf-8' (note the space before the semicolon) and observe whether your application accepts it as JSON or rejects it
    Affected if The malformed header bypasses your Content-Type validation or is processed as valid JSON when it should not be

You are affected if @fastify/reply-from version is below 9.6.0 AND your application performs security checks on Content-Type headers that could be bypassed by the space-before-semicolon pattern.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 9.6.0 or later
Fixed in 9.6.0
Interim mitigation

Upgrade @fastify/reply-from to version 9.6.0 or later to patch the Content-Type parsing vulnerability. Review all incoming request handling code to ensure proper header validation is in place.

Recommended fix High confidence

9.6.0

  1. Upgrade @fastify/reply-from to version 9.6.0 or later using your package manager (e.g., npm install @fastify/reply-from@^9.6.0 or yarn add @fastify/reply-from@^9.6.0)
  2. Test the upgrade in a staging environment to ensure the reverse proxy functionality works correctly
  3. Deploy the updated version to production

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Reply From Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
8.0 hours of engineering $1,390
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-51701 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-51701 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data