CVE-2026-6790
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 · uneditedIn Eclipse Jetty, for HTTP/1, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 requests, there is no strict check that the request authority (host and port) matches what provided in the Host header (if present). This was not enforced in earlier HTTP RFC (for example, in RFC 2616), but it is in the latest RFC (9110 and 9112). This mismatch can cause a number of problems that may be classified as vulnerabilities such as: * URI constructions (for example, for redirects -- this is typical for login pages) * Virtual host selection * Reverse proxying * Misleading logs * Etc. Given that the latest RFCs require that request authority and Host header must match, Jetty should enforce this invariant.
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 confidenceEclipse Jetty fails to enforce RFC 9110/9112 compliance by not validating that the request authority (host:port from the request URI) matches the Host header value. This mismatch can cause insecure URI construction (especially for redirects), virtual host confusion, reverse proxy misrouting, and misleading logs across HTTP/1, HTTP/2, and HTTP/3.
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>= 9.4.0, < 9.4.61>= 10.0.0, < 10.0.29>= 11.0.0, < 11.0.29>= 12.0.0, < 12.0.35>= 12.1.0, < 12.1.9CVSS 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
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Determine installed Jetty versionLocate the jetty-version.jar or check start.jar manifest, or run: java -jar start.jar --version. Also check WEB-INF/lib for jetty-util-* jars which contain version info.Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: 9.4.0 to 9.4.60, 10.0.0 to 10.0.28, 11.0.0 to 11.0.28, 12.0.0 to 12.0.34, or 12.1.0 to 12.1.8
-
Identify active HTTP connectorsReview Jetty XML configuration files (typically in etc/ directory) or the deployment descriptor for active Connector elements. Look for HttpConfiguration with HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2, or HTTP/3 connectors configured.Affected if Any HTTP/1, HTTP/2, or HTTP/3 connectors are enabled and accepting requests; the vulnerability affects all three protocols
-
Check for upstream proxy validationInspect any reverse proxy (nginx, Apache HTTPD, HAProxy, cloud load balancer) configuration sitting in front of Jetty to determine if it validates and normalizes Host headers before forwarding to Jetty.Affected if No upstream proxy exists, or the proxy does not enforce consistency between the request URI authority and the Host header before passing requests to Jetty
-
Test request authority mismatch behaviorSend a test request to the Jetty server with mismatched authority: use a URI with one host:port (e.g., example.com:8080) but send a different Host header (e.g., malicious.example.com). Observe whether Jetty accepts and processes the request without rejecting or normalizing it.Affected if Jetty accepts the mismatched request without returning a 400 error or normalizing the Host header to match the URI authority
You are affected if your Jetty version is within the affected ranges listed and you have HTTP connectors (HTTP/1, HTTP/2, or HTTP/3) enabled without upstream validation enforcing Host header/URI authority consistency.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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 · scoped9.4.6110.0.2911.0.29
Upgrade to a Jetty version that enforces request authority/Host header consistency per RFC 9110/9112, or implement validation at an upstream proxy/gateway layer if upgrading is not immediately feasible.
Jetty 9.4.61+ / 10.0.29+ / 11.0.29+ / 12.0.35+ (depending on your major version line)
- 1. Identify the current Jetty version in use by checking project dependencies or pom.xml
- 2. Determine which Jetty major version line (9.4.x, 10.0.x, 11.0.x, or 12.0.x) is being used
- 3. For Jetty 9.4.x: upgrade to version 9.4.61 or later
- 4. For Jetty 10.0.x: upgrade to version 10.0.29 or later
- 5. For Jetty 11.0.x: upgrade to version 11.0.29 or later
- 6. For Jetty 12.0.x: upgrade to version 12.0.35 or later
- 7. Update the dependency in build configuration (pom.xml, build.gradle, or similar)
- 8. Rebuild and redeploy the application
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,648.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-6790 — 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 sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-6790 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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