EnvoyApplication · Envoyproxy

CVE-2024-23326

HIGH · 8.2 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-06-04
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 1.27.6 / 1.28.4 or later.
See remediation →
91/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
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
Envoy is a cloud-native, open source edge and service proxy. A theoretical request smuggling vulnerability exists through Envoy if a server can be tricked into adding an upgrade header into a response. Per RFC https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7230#section-6.7 a server sends 101 when switching protocols. Envoy incorrectly accepts a 200 response from a server when requesting a protocol upgrade, but 200 does not indicate protocol switch. This opens up the possibility of request smuggling through Envoy if the server can be tricked into adding the upgrade header to the response.

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

Envoy incorrectly accepts a 200 response with an Upgrade header when requesting a protocol upgrade, when RFC 7230 section 6.7 specifies that only a 101 status code indicates successful protocol switching. This allows request smuggling through Envoy if an attacker can trick an upstream server into adding an Upgrade header to a 200 response.

MitigationUpgrade to the patched version of Envoy that properly validates that 101 is the only valid response for protocol upgrade requests, or implement strict validation of upstream responses to reject non-101 responses containing Upgrade headers.

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
EnvoyApplication
Affected:< 1.27.6>= 1.28.0, < 1.28.4>= 1.29.0, < 1.29.5>= 1.30.0, < 1.30.2

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
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/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. Determine Envoy version
    Run 'envoy --version' or check the binary metadata to identify the installed Envoy version
    Affected if The version falls within < 1.27.6, >= 1.28.0 and < 1.28.4, >= 1.29.0 and < 1.29.5, or >= 1.30.0 and < 1.30.2
  2. Identify if HTTP upgrade capability is enabled
    Review the Envoy configuration file (static or dynamic) for 'upgrade_config' settings or any 'Upgrade' headers configured in the http_filters chain
    Affected if Upgrade handling is explicitly enabled in the Envoy listener or route configuration
  3. Check for upstream configurations that process responses
    Examine Envoy upstream cluster configurations for any route or filter setups that may forward or process responses from backends that could add Upgrade headers
    Affected if Upstream configurations exist that could receive responses from servers capable of adding Upgrade headers to non-101 responses

You are affected if running a vulnerable Envoy version (as identified in step 1) AND the Envoy configuration has HTTP upgrade capabilities enabled (step 2) AND upstream responses could be manipulated to include Upgrade headers on non-101 status codes (step 3).

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 1.27.6 / 1.28.4 / 1.29.5 or later
Fixed in 1.27.61.28.41.29.5
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to the patched version of Envoy that properly validates that 101 is the only valid response for protocol upgrade requests, or implement strict validation of upstream responses to reject non-101 responses containing Upgrade headers.

Recommended fix High confidence

1.30.2

  1. Upgrade Envoy to version 1.30.2, or if already on 1.29.x upgrade to 1.29.5, or if on 1.28.x upgrade to 1.28.4, or if on 1.27.x upgrade to 1.27.6

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

Fix this in Envoy Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
20.0 hours of engineering $3,460
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,536.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-23326 — 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-2024-23326 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