testing-request-smuggling

name	testing-request-smuggling
description	Test whether a chain of HTTP servers disagrees about where one request ends and the next begins, letting an attacker smuggle a request past the front end into the back end. Covers front-end and back-end desync from conflicting length signals, connection-reuse poisoning, single-packet and timing detection, and adjacent boundary confusion where a proxy and origin parse framing differently. Use when reviewing a reverse proxy, load balancer, CDN, or any multi-hop HTTP path where two parsers sit in series. The bug is a disagreement between parsers, not one flaw.
license	MIT

Testing request smuggling: the bug is between two servers

When two HTTP servers sit in series and parse a request's boundaries differently, the front end forwards what it thinks is one request while the back end sees two, and the smuggled second request is attributed to the next client on the reused connection. That desync lets an attacker prefix a victim's request, bypass front-end controls, poison the connection, and capture other users' traffic. The bug is a disagreement between parsers, not a single flaw in one.

When to use

• You are reviewing a reverse proxy, load balancer, CDN, or gateway in front of an origin.
• Requests pass through more than one HTTP parser in series.
• Connections between hops are kept alive and shared across clients.

Scope check

Test chains you own or are authorized to test, and keep every probe on your own traffic. Do not target other users' live requests. If you can't name the authorization, stop.

The loop

1. Map the server chain and the reused connections. Identify every hop a request passes through (edge, proxy, balancer, cache, origin) and where connections between hops are kept alive and shared across clients. A desync only bites where a downstream connection is reused for another user, so map that reuse first.

2. Find conflicting length signals. A request's body length can be stated more than one way, and smuggling happens when two hops resolve a conflict differently: one honors one signal, the other honors the other. Check whether the chain normalizes or rejects conflicting or duplicated length signals, or passes them through for the next hop to reinterpret.

3. Probe for desync safely. Using benign, self-targeted probes, test whether a crafted boundary makes the back end treat trailing bytes as the start of the next request, observable as a delayed or mis-attributed response. Prefer timing-based and single-packet detection that confirms the split without harming other users. A measurable difference between "rejected" and "the next request was affected" is the signal.

4. Escalate to impact on your own traffic. If a split is confirmed, demonstrate the concrete effect against your own second request: prefixing it, bypassing a front-end path restriction, or capturing the response to a request you control. Do not target other users' live traffic; prove the primitive on requests you own.

5. Check adjacent boundary confusion. Does the chain hand off to another protocol or downgrade a connection where the two ends parse framing differently (a proxy and origin disagreeing on a message boundary)? The same parser-disagreement class extends beyond one protocol version. Note any hop that reframes requests.

6. Rate and record. A confirmed desync that bypasses controls or captures cross-user requests is critical; a reliably rejected boundary is a kill. Record the exact conflicting signals and the observed split, and recommend the fix: normalize or reject ambiguous framing at the edge, prefer one connection per client to the origin, and reject conflicting length signals outright.

Where the chain desyncs

• The vulnerability is between two servers. Neither is wrong alone; they disagree, and the disagreement is the bug.
• Connection reuse is what makes it dangerous. Without a shared downstream connection, a split affects only you.
• Ambiguous framing should be rejected, not resolved. Any hop that helpfully reinterprets a conflicting boundary is a desync source.
• Detection can be safe. Timing and single-packet methods confirm a split without poisoning real users.

Worked example (a confirm and a kill)

Confirm. An edge proxy and the origin resolve a conflicting length signal differently; a crafted request leaves trailing bytes the origin treats as the next request. A benign timing probe shows the following self-owned request is prefixed by the smuggled bytes, and a front-end-blocked path becomes reachable through the smuggled request. Confirmed request smuggling, critical, remediation = reject conflicting length signals at the edge, normalize framing, and avoid sharing origin connections across clients.

Kill. The edge rejects any request with duplicated or conflicting length signals with a 400, normalizes all forwarded requests to a single unambiguous framing, and uses a fresh origin connection per client. Every desync probe is rejected and no trailing bytes reach the origin as a new request. Killed, kill_reason = "ambiguous framing rejected and normalized at the edge; no shared downstream connection to poison."

Rationalizations to reject

• "Both servers are standards-compliant." → Compliance still leaves boundary ambiguities they can resolve differently. Test the pair, not each alone.
• "There's a filter at the edge." → Smuggling bypasses the edge by hiding the request from it. The control it enforces is exactly what gets skipped.
• "We use modern HTTP." → Newer versions have their own desync and reset classes. The parser-disagreement problem moves, it does not vanish.
• "We couldn't reproduce it once." → Desync can be timing-sensitive. Use single-packet and timing detection before calling it clean.

Executing this in practice

You need to see the server chain, control a client that can send precisely-framed requests, and observe response timing and attribution on connections you own. Any tooling that sends byte-exact requests and measures timing works; the connection-reuse map and the conflicting-signal analysis are the method. Keep every probe on your own traffic.

Related

• mapping-attack-surface - enumerating the proxy, cache, and origin hops in the chain.
• testing-web-cache-attacks - a smuggled response can poison a shared cache entry.
• FINDING-SCHEMA.md - source = the ambiguously-framed request, sink = the back-end request it splits into or the control it bypasses.