CVE-2026-110354 — Infinite Loop in Haproxy
HAProxy 3 before 3.4.6 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to cause a denial of service (persistent worker-thread CPU exhaustion) via an HTTP/1.1 chunked request. Although the H1 multiplexer drains the request before closing the stream, the parser repeatedly re-processes the same bytes without making progress. The affected thread stays busy at 100% CPU after timeouts expire and after the client disconnects, and repeated requests can consume all worker threads until the process is restarted.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.8% (30-day exploitation probability)+8
- Technical severity (high)+6
- Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
CISA SSVC assessment CISA
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Haproxy Haproxy, Haproxy HAProxy Enterprise Edition, HAProxy Technologies HAProxy Kubernetes Ingress Controller…).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (denial of service), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haproxy | Haproxy | ≥ 3.0.0 and < 3.0.30≥ 3.2.0 and < 3.2.26≥ 3.3.0 and < 3.3.17≥ 3.4.0 and < 3.4.6≥ 3.5-dev and < 3.5-dev9 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
| Haproxy | HAProxy Enterprise Edition | ≥ 3.0r1 and < 3.0r1-362.1441≥ 3.2r1 and < 3.2r1-378.1259≥ 3.3r1 and < 3.3r1-377.1005 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
| HAProxy Technologies | HAProxy Kubernetes Ingress Controller | ≥ 3.2.0 and < 3.2.17 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
| HAProxy Technologies | Kubernetes Ingress Controller Enterprise | ≥ 3.2.0 and < 3.2.17-ee1≥ 3.0 and < 3.0.16-ee17≥ 1.11 and < 1.11.14-ee11 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.1 | High | 3.9 | 3.6 | cve@mitre.org via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.1 | High | — | — | mitre via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H (score shown at the top: cve@mitre.org) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 22, 2026 → Oct 23, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.76%
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
- Track CPU/memory spikes and availability drops correlated with request patterns.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- SSVC assessment updated
- Source status changed · Received → Awaiting Analysis
- Affected products added · haproxy/haproxy, haproxy/haproxy enterprise edition, haproxy technologies/haproxy kubernetes ingress controller, haproxy
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 7.5
- Source status changed · → Received
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× References added · Oct 22, 2026 – Oct 22, 2026
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 22, 2026 – Oct 22, 2026
References
1 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- High CVE-2026-110353 Unchecked Return Value in Haproxy 2d
- High CVE-2026-90678 An issue was discovered in HAProxy 3.3.0 through 3.4.4 and in 3.5-dev1 through 3.5-dev5… Sep 13, 2026
- Low CVE-2026-26080 Unchecked Return Value in Haproxy Jul 20, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-26081 HAProxy Community Edition 3.0 through 3.3 before 3.3.3 lacks a length check for the… Jul 20, 2026
- Critical CVE-2026-55203 HAProxy - Integer Overflow in FCGI Demux Record Length Field Jun 18, 2026
- High CVE-2026-55204 HAProxy - NULL Pointer Dereference in hpack_dht_insert Function Jun 18, 2026
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-110354 is "Infinite Loop in Haproxy", rated High. It affects Haproxy (Haproxy); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.76% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.