Vulnerabilities

Security research · CVE-2026-54282

Unvalidated request path concatenated into authority poisons request.url.hostname

Published Jun 11, 2026 · catalog updated Jun 12, 2026 · Unvalidated request path concatenated

Last checked Nov 2, 2026. A connected source was read within the last 7 days.

Check if you run it

No confirmed exploitation is on record for CVE-2026-54282. EPSS is 0.27%. Act only if a listed version of Unvalidated request path concatenated is installed.

Gaps on this record

  • The stored product name is a package slug. The name on this page is taken from the title (Unvalidated request path concatenated).
  • No vendor fix or required action is stored. Compare the linked advisory before you change production.
Severity
Low3.7
Known exploitation
Not in CISA/VulnCheck KEV
EPSS
0.27%
Remediation
Version ranges on file
Affected products
pip Starlette

### Summary In affected versions, the HTTP request path is not validated before being used to reconstruct . Because is rebuilt by concatenating and re-parsing the result, a path that does not begin with (for example ) moves the authority boundary during re-parsing, so and become attacker-controlled. Code that reads (rather than the header or ) can therefore be misled into trusting an attacker-supplied host. ### Details When a client requests a path that does not start with : affected versions reconstruct the URL as . Per [RFC 3986 §3.2.1](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#section-3.2.1), the substring before in the authority is , so re-parsing yields and , with an empty path: The root cause is that the path is concatenated directly after the host without a separating , and without validating that it begins with one. Only the header was validated when constructing ; the path was not. This requires an ASGI server that forwards a request-target lacking a leading into . ### Impact Any application running an affected version that uses , , or for a security-sensitive decision (host-based authorization, redirect/callback base, SSRF target, cache key, audit log) may be affected, when no fronting proxy or load balancer rejects the malformed request-target first. Note that this is less exploitable than [GHSA-86qp-5c8j-p5mr](https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/security/advisories/GHSA-86qp-5c8j-p5mr): there, the poison is carried in the header, so the real path still routes to a valid endpoint while lies. Here, the poison must be carried in the path itself, and that path ( ) does not match any registered route, so routing returns and no endpoint handler runs. The exposure is limited to code that reads before routing - notably middleware - or in 404/exception handlers. ### Mitigation Upgrade to a patched version, which prevents the request path from crossing into the URL authority. The request above instead yields with .

Are you affected?

Enter the version you run. The result uses only the ranges stored on this record.

The check returns affected, not affected, or incomplete. It does not guess a version that is missing from the record.

  • pip Starlette< 1.3.0

How to fix CVE-2026-54282

  • Upgrade

    CVE-2026-54282 lists a fix boundary at 1.3.0. Compare the installed build with that boundary before you change production.

  • Version check

    Affected < 1.3.0

  • Advisory

    Open the inventory_github record and follow its fix.

  • Official advisories

What to do

Three questions, each answered from this record only. Confirm the vendor advisory before you patch.

Should you patch?

No confirmed exploitation is on record for CVE-2026-54282. EPSS is 0.27%. Act only if a listed version of Unvalidated request path concatenated is installed.

Which versions are affected?

Compare what you have installed with Starlette < 1.3.0. Compare the installed version with the linked vendor advisory before you change production.

What should an analyst verify?

No weakness class is stored. EPSS 0.27%. There is no CISA KEV listing. No Exploit-DB or Metasploit reference is linked. Use the source links for the original advisory.

Technology hubs

Code

The project this record applies to. Exploit listings stay in References.

No public source repository is identified for this product.

Timeline

Detection, updates, and resolution for this record.

  1. Jun 11, 2026 · Maintainer security tabs

    Detected

    ### Summary In affected versions, the HTTP request path is not validated before being used to reconstruct . Because is rebuilt by concatenating and re-parsing the result, a path that does not begin with (for example ) moves the authority boundary during re-parsing, so and become attacker-controlled. Code that reads (rather than the header or ) can therefore be misled into trusting an attacker-supp

  2. Jun 12, 2026 · Maintainer security tabs

    Updated

    ### Summary In affected versions, the HTTP request path is not validated before being used to reconstruct . Because is rebuilt by concatenating and re-parsing the result, a path that does not begin with (for example ) moves the authority boundary during re-parsing, so and become attacker-controlled. Code that reads (rather than the header or ) can therefore be misled into trusting an attacker-supp

Sources

  • Maintainer security tabsVendor advisoryGHSA-jp82-jpqv-5vv3

    ### Summary In affected versions, the HTTP request path is not validated before being used to reconstruct . Because is rebuilt by concatenating and re-parsing the result, a path that does not begin with (for example ) moves the authority boundary during re-parsing, so and become attacker-controlled. Code that reads (rather than the header or ) can therefore be misled into trusting an attacker-supp

    github.com

Freshness

Last verified in this catalog Nov 2, 2026. Significant claims (KEV, EPSS, CVSS, affected ranges) come from the source rows above — open the original publisher for the authoritative advisory.

  • Maintainer security tabsNov 2, 2026