http4k 4.9.10.0 before 6.60.0.0 Digest auth-int Missing Body Integrity
Affects http4k from 4.9.10.0 before 6.60.0.0 when ServerFilters.DigestAuth uses the auth-int qop over a non-TLS channel. Fixed in 6.60.0.0.
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
- Exploited
- Proof of concept public, per CISA
- Fix
- Fixed in 6.60.0.0
- Who is exposed
- Specific setups only
Do first: Check whether your setup matches what the bug needs. Digest authentication uses the auth-int quality-of-protection option, which is computed without hashing the body Server configured with ServerFilters.DigestAuth using qop = listOf(Qop.AuthInt) Traffic travels over a non-TLS channel Affected http4k versions from 4.9.10.0 before 6.60.0.0
- Last modified
- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean? →
- Published
- Whether CISA lists it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog: proof that attackers are using it.What do these mean? →
- Not listed in CISA KEV
- A 0-100 score for how much a CVE matters across the industry: exploitation, exposure, how widely the software is used, severity and whether a fix exists.What do these mean? →
- 35/100 · provisional
- How many real-world setups can hit the bug, from the vendor's advisory and CISA data. It does not know your setup.What do these mean? →
- Specific setups only
- Fix
- Fixed in 6.60.0.0
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
- Exploitation: poc
- Automatable: no
- Technical impact: partial
Summary
http4k, a Kotlin library for building HTTP applications, is affected when it uses Digest authentication with the auth-int quality of protection. Because the request body is not included in the digest, an attacker positioned between client and server on a non-TLS connection could alter the body of an authenticated request and perform state-changing actions as the victim.
Read the original description
http4k from 4.9.10.0 before 6.60.0.0 contains a missing integrity check vulnerability because DigestEncoder computes the auth-int digest without hashing the request entity body. On-path attackers on non-TLS channels can rewrite the body of authenticated requests while keeping the Authorization header valid, executing state-changing actions as the victim.
What to do
Check whether your setup matches what the bug needs.
Digest authentication uses the auth-int quality-of-protection option, which is computed without hashing the body Server configured with ServerFilters.DigestAuth using qop = listOf(Qop.AuthInt) Traffic travels over a non-TLS channel Affected http4k versions from 4.9.10.0 before 6.60.0.0Upgrade to a fixed version: 6.60.0.0.
Workaround: Use TLS for the transport and configure qop = listOf(Qop.Auth) instead of auth-int.
Timeline
- CVE published
- First seen by cve.now
- CISA SSVC assessment
Exploitation: poc · Automatable: no · Technical impact: partial
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- http4k http4k
From 4.9.10.0 · fixed in 6.60.0.0
Evidence 2
- Advisory
- Link
Corrections
None so far.
Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.
Questions about CVE-2026-120317
What does this mean?
Digest auth-int computes the digest without hashing the request body, so an on-path attacker on a non-TLS connection can change the body of an authenticated request and the server accepts it as the victim's authenticated principal.Source: github.com, vulncheck.com
Am I affected, and how do I check?
Affects http4k 4.9.10.0 before 6.60.0.0 when the server is configured with ServerFilters.DigestAuth using qop = listOf(Qop.AuthInt) over a non-TLS channel. Check the http4k version in the build file and the qop argument passed to DigestAuth.Source: github.com, vulncheck.com
What should I do about it?
Upgrade http4k to 6.60.0.0 or later. Until then, use TLS for the transport and configure qop = listOf(Qop.Auth) instead of auth-int.Source: github.com, vulncheck.com
Is it being exploited?
It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. CISA's SSVC assessment notes a proof of concept exists. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data