CWE-180Weakness · CWE-180

CVE-2026-69245

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-08-03
Patch available
A vendor patch is available. No clean upgrade release — apply the published patch.
See remediation →
74/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click Patch available 3 weeks old

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
Guzzle is an extensible PHP HTTP client. Prior to 7.15.2 and 8.0.1, SetCookie::matchesDomain() gives every subdomain of a cookie Domain that cookie unless SetCookie::matchesDomain() recognizes the Domain as an IP literal or a numeric host, and the decision comes from the domain's own text, so two spellings a transport reads as an address keep subdomain scope. Hexadecimal and mixed-base forms such as 0x7f000001 and 0177.0.0.0x1 go unrecognized while libcurl 8.21.0 reads both as 127.0.0.1. A percent-escaped Domain keeps that scope on both branches because percent-decoding sits above numeric parsing, so 192.168.0.%31 and 127.0.0.1%2e are registered names in the URI grammar rather than address literals, and no numeric rule in any base classifies them, while libcurl decodes the host before resolving and reads them as 192.168.0.1 and 127.0.0.1. A cookie stored for Domain=0x7f000001 is placed in the Cookie header of a request to evil.0x7f000001, disclosing a session identifier or token to a host that is not that address, and a response from evil.0x7f000001 setting Domain=0x7f000001 is accepted into the jar and replayed to the address, so a server answering for the look-alike name can fix a session or set application state. Exploitation requires the application to enable cookie support, address an origin by one of these spellings, and contact a host whose name ends in that spelling. This issue is fixed in versions 7.15.2 and 8.0.1.

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

A detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.

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
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

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

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
Patch available Apply the vendor patch
Vendor patch github.com →
Recommended fix High confidence

Guzzle 7.15.2 or 8.0.1

  1. Check the currently installed Guzzle version by running `composer show guzzlehttp/guzzle` or inspecting composer.lock
  2. Update the Guzzle dependency in composer.json to require version ^7.15.2 for major version 7, or ^8.0.1 for major version 8
  3. Run `composer update guzzlehttp/guzzle` to install the fixed version
  4. Verify the upgrade was successful by running `composer show guzzlehttp/guzzle` and confirming the version is 7.15.2 or 8.0.1 or higher
  5. Run application tests to confirm cookie handling still works correctly after the update

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

We can apply and verify the patch for your build — typical engagement from $1,600. Get the patch applied

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-69245 — 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-2026-69245 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