CVE-2026-94194: Mint HTTP/1 client applies chunked framing when chunked is not the final transfer coding, enabling response smuggling through intermediaries

Published Sep 28, 2026
·
Updated

Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') vulnerability in elixir-mint mint allows a malicious HTTP/1 server to desynchronize an intermediary and the Mint client on a pooled connection, poisoning the responses to subsequent requests that share the connection.

messagebody/1 in lib/mint/http1.ex selects chunked framing when chunked is the first coding listed in a response's Transfer-Encoding fields. RFC 9112 section 6.3 applies chunked framing only when chunked is the final coding, and otherwise reads the body until the server closes the connection. For a response such as Transfer-Encoding: chunked, gzip, an intermediary that follows the RFC treats every byte up to the close as the body, while Mint ends the body at the zero-length chunk and parses the remaining bytes as the response to the next request on the connection.

Mint also keeps the connection open after an HTTP/1.0 response, final or 1xx, that carries Transfer-Encoding and Connection: keep-alive. RFC 9112 section 6.1 requires treating the framing of such a message as faulty and closing the connection after it, so bytes after its chunked body are parsed as the response to the next request in the same way.

This issue affects mint: from 0.1.0 before 1.11.0.

Affected Software

1 affected component
hex/mint>=0.1.0<1.11.0

Remediation

Recommended actions to resolve this vulnerability, in priority order.

  1. Upgrade

    Upgrade elixir-mint/mint to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Fixed in 1.11.0

Event History

Sep 28, 2026
CVE Published
via MITRE·11:15 AM
Data Sourced
via MITRE·11:15 AM
DescriptionWeakness
Data Sourced
via NVD·12:17 PM
DescriptionSeverityWeakness

Frequently Asked Questions

1

Which connection patterns are exposed?

Exposure involves Mint HTTP/1 pooled connections where subsequent requests share a connection. A desynchronization can cause bytes from one response to be interpreted as the response to a later request on that same connection.

2

What must an attacker control to exploit this?

The attacker needs a malicious HTTP/1 server capable of sending malformed or ambiguously framed responses. Relevant cases include a Transfer-Encoding value such as "chunked, gzip", or an HTTP/1.0 final or 1xx response carrying both Transfer-Encoding and Connection: keep-alive.

Contact

SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
132 Wickham Terrace
Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, Australia
info@secalerts.co
By using SecAlerts services, you agree to our services end-user license agreement. This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA and governed by the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. All names, logos, and brands of products are owned by their respective owners, and any usage of these names, logos, and brands for identification purposes only does not imply endorsement. If you possess any content that requires removal, please get in touch with us.
© 2026 SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
ABN: 70 645 966 203, ACN: 645 966 203