rustsec-2026-0174
Vulnerability from osv_rustsec
Published
2026-03-11 12:00
Modified
2026-06-08 16:24
Summary
`Authorization::value` and `WwwAuthenticate::value` can violate ASCII invariants
Details

Authorization::value uses HeaderValue::value with the claim that the internal string is ASCII, but Authorization::new and Authorization::set_credentials accept arbitrary String credentials without validation. As a result, safe code can construct a header value containing non-ASCII UTF-8 while the implementation assumes ASCII.

WwwAuthenticate::new and WwwAuthenticate::set_realm similarly accepts arbitrary String input, so WwwAuthenticate::value can also produce a header value that violates the crate’s documented ASCII invariants.

This issue has not been confirmed as Undefined Behavior, but the unsafe justification in Authorization::value and WwwAuthenticate::value appears incorrect and can produce values outside the expected ASCII-only constraints.

The http-types crate is unmaintained and the issue is unlikely to be fixed.


{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "categories": [],
        "cvss": null,
        "informational": "notice"
      },
      "ecosystem_specific": {
        "affected_functions": null,
        "affects": {
          "arch": [],
          "functions": [],
          "os": []
        }
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "http-types",
        "purl": "pkg:cargo/http-types"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.0.0-0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "SEMVER"
        }
      ],
      "versions": []
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "license": "CC0-1.0"
  },
  "details": "`Authorization::value` uses `HeaderValue::value` with the claim\nthat the internal string is ASCII, but `Authorization::new` and\n`Authorization::set_credentials` accept arbitrary `String` credentials without\nvalidation. As a result, safe code can construct a header value containing\nnon-ASCII UTF-8 while the implementation assumes ASCII.\n\n`WwwAuthenticate::new` and `WwwAuthenticate::set_realm` similarly accepts arbitrary `String` input, so `WwwAuthenticate::value` can also produce a header value that violates the crate\u2019s documented ASCII invariants. \n\nThis issue has not been confirmed as Undefined Behavior, but the unsafe\njustification in `Authorization::value` and `WwwAuthenticate::value` appears incorrect and can produce values outside the expected ASCII-only constraints.\n\nThe http-types crate is unmaintained and the issue is unlikely to be fixed.",
  "id": "RUSTSEC-2026-0174",
  "modified": "2026-06-08T16:24:35Z",
  "published": "2026-03-11T12:00:00Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://crates.io/crates/http-types"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0174.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "REPORT",
      "url": "https://github.com/http-rs/http-types/issues/534"
    }
  ],
  "related": [],
  "severity": [],
  "summary": "`Authorization::value` and `WwwAuthenticate::value` can violate ASCII invariants"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…