CVE-2026-69245 — Guzzle: Noncanonical cookie domain keeps subdomain scope
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.
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 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+1
- Technical severity (medium)+3
- 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 (Guzzle Guzzle).
- 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, errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | 3.9 | 2.5 | security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 6.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | — | — | GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
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).
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · guzzle/guzzle
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 6.5
- Source status changed · → Awaiting Analysis
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
7 on the record
- github.com/guzzle/guzzle/security/advisories/GHSA-f7vp-7xgx-4w4r
- github.com/guzzle/guzzle/commit/3aeea0406aab88cbbd86531313d7cebf8ae149a4
- github.com/guzzle/guzzle/releases/tag/8.0.1
- github.com/guzzle/guzzle/pull/3908
- github.com/guzzle/guzzle/releases/tag/7.15.2
- github.com/guzzle/guzzle/pull/3907
- github.com/guzzle/guzzle/commit/744101956d78b7c1384d0cbf379db13e859167bf
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- High CVE-2026-69246 Guzzle: Noncanonical host can bypass host-based checks Aug 3, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-67355 guzzlehttp/guzzle before 7.15.1 Host-only Cookie Scope Aug 1, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-67353 guzzlehttp/guzzle before 7.15.1 Unbounded Cookie Denial of Service Aug 1, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-67354 guzzlehttp/guzzle before 7.15.1 URI Fragment Disclosure via Referer Aug 1, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-67339 guzzlehttp/guzzle before 7.14.2 Proxy-Authorization Header Disclosure Aug 1, 2026
- Medium CVE-2026-59883 Guzzle: Cookie Disclosure and Injection via IP-Address Domains Jul 8, 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-2026-69245 is "Guzzle: Noncanonical cookie domain keeps subdomain scope", rated Medium. It affects Guzzle (Guzzle); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.20% 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.