CVE Intelligence
High Injection

CVE-2026-61642 — Squid Request Smuggling in HTTP Transfer-Encoding

Squid is a caching proxy for the Web. From 3.3.0.1 to before 7.6, due to an improper enforcement of behavioral workflow bug, Squid is vulnerable to a Request Smuggling attack against HTTP/1.1 Transfer-Encoding. HTTP header parsing (`src/HttpHeader.cc`) accepted the bare` Transfer-Encoding:` identity form, which the HTTP specification prohibits because any transfer coding must be wrapped within chunked encoding. This problem allows a trusted client to perform an HTTP Request Smuggling attack when HTTP/1.1 is used, bypassing security mechanisms that may be in place between attacker and Squid. When there is an HTTP cache operating prior to the affected Squid, this Request Smuggling attack also allows the attacker to poison that web cache and store arbitrary malicious content at any URL for delivery to other clients' future requests. This issue is fixed in version 7.6.

Published Oct 13, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 4.7% (30-day exploitation probability)+14
  • Technical severity (high)+6

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.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
4.68%
ahead of 92% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Squid-cache
Squid
CVSS base
7.7
High · 2 source(s)

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.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

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.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Squid-cache Squid).
  2. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. EPSS ahead of 92% of scored CVEs: prioritize it in the patch queue.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (injection), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Squid-cache Squid version >= 3.3.0.1, < 7.6 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
7.7 CVSS 3.1 High 3.1 4.0 security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.7 CVSS 3.1 High — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-444 · HTTP Request Smuggling

Other CVEs with this weakness →

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).
  • Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSapplication logsendpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · squid-cache/squid
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 7.7
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Received
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Oct 13, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

6 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Squid-cache
every CVE for this vendor
Injection
same class
CWE-444
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-47729 Squid: Memory disclosure in FTP gateway Jul 16, 2026
  • CVE-2026-50012 Squid: Memory corruption in cache_digest reply handling Jul 16, 2026
  • CVE-2026-33515 Squid has issues in ICP message handling Mar 25, 2026
  • CVE-2026-33526 Squid vulnerable to Denial of Service in ICP Request handling Mar 25, 2026
  • CVE-2026-32748 Squid has Denial of Service in ICP Response handling Mar 25, 2026
  • CVE-2025-62168 Squid vulnerable to information disclosure via authentication credential leakage in error handling Oct 17, 2025

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-2026-61642 is "Squid Request Smuggling in HTTP Transfer-Encoding", rated High. It affects Squid (Squid-cache); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.7 describes technical severity. EPSS 4.68% 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.