BARE-CR-HEADER-VALUE


Test ID	`SMUG-BARE-CR-HEADER-VALUE`
Category	Smuggling
RFC	RFC 9112 §2.2
Requirement	MUST reject or replace with SP
Expected	`400` or close

What it sends

Header value containing a bare CR (0x0D not followed by LF).

POST / HTTP/1.1\r\n
Host: localhost:8080\r\n
Content-Length: 5\r\n
X-Test: val\rue\r\n
\r\n
hello

The X-Test header value contains a bare CR (\r / 0x0D) between val and ue.

What the RFC says

"A sender MUST NOT generate a bare CR (a CR character not immediately followed by LF) within any protocol elements other than the content." — RFC 9112 §2.2

"A recipient of such a bare CR MUST consider that element to be invalid or replace each bare CR with SP before processing the element or forwarding the message." — RFC 9112 §2.2

Why it matters

Bare CR in header values can cause parsers to disagree on header boundaries. A parser that treats bare CR as a line terminator may see the bytes after the CR as a new header line, while a parser that only recognizes CRLF sees them as part of the original value. If a front-end and back-end disagree on where headers begin and end, an attacker can inject headers visible to one parser but not the other -- enabling request smuggling.

Deep Analysis

Relevant ABNF

From RFC 9112 Section 2.2, HTTP/1.1 messages use CRLF as the standard line terminator:

HTTP-message = start-line CRLF
               *( field-line CRLF )
               CRLF
               [ message-body ]

A bare CR (0x0D not followed by 0x0A) is not a valid protocol element outside of message content.

RFC Evidence

"A sender MUST NOT generate a bare CR (a CR character not immediately followed by LF) within any protocol elements other than the content." -- RFC 9112 Section 2.2

"A recipient of such a bare CR MUST consider that element to be invalid or replace each bare CR with SP before processing the element or forwarding the message." -- RFC 9112 Section 2.2

"Although the line terminator for the start-line and fields is the sequence CRLF, a recipient MAY recognize a single LF as a line terminator and ignore any preceding CR." -- RFC 9112 Section 2.2

Chain of Reasoning

The RFC draws a hard line against bare CR. The MUST NOT / MUST language in Section 2.2 is unambiguous: bare CR in protocol elements (headers, request-line, etc.) is prohibited by senders and must be treated as invalid or replaced with SP by recipients. There is no third option -- the recipient cannot silently pass it through unchanged.
Parser disagreement is the core danger. Consider the header X-Test: val\rue. A parser that treats bare CR as a line terminator sees X-Test: val followed by a new header line starting with ue. A parser that treats only CRLF as a line terminator sees the entire value as val\rue. A parser that replaces bare CR with SP sees val ue. These three interpretations produce three different header sets from the same bytes on the wire.
The split enables header injection. If an attacker places \rEvil-Header: payload inside a header value, a CR-as-terminator parser will see a new header Evil-Header: payload that is invisible to parsers using CRLF. This is particularly dangerous when the front-end proxy forwards the bare CR unchanged while the back-end splits on it, allowing attacker-controlled headers to reach the back-end.
Attack scenario. An attacker sends X-Forwarded-For: 127.0.0.1\rTransfer-Encoding: chunked. The proxy sees one header (X-Forwarded-For) with a strange value. The back-end, splitting on bare CR, sees two headers -- including Transfer-Encoding: chunked -- enabling a CL.TE smuggling attack that the proxy never detected.

Scored / Unscored Justification

This test is scored. The RFC uses double-MUST language: senders MUST NOT generate bare CR, and recipients MUST either reject the element as invalid or replace bare CR with SP. There is no MAY or SHOULD qualifier -- the requirement is absolute. A server that silently passes through bare CR unchanged violates a MUST-level requirement, making it appropriate to score this test and fail servers that do not reject or sanitize.

Sources

RFC 9112 §2.2