Skip to content

CVE-2026-47075

Is CVE-2026-47075 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
7.5 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.5%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-93
CWE

High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Real, but low real-world risk

A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →
Affected:Benoitc

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences vulnerability in benoitc hackney allows HTTP Request Splitting. hackney does not percent-encode carriage return (\r) or line feed (\n) characters in the URL query component before constructing the HTTP/1.1 request target. Characters outside the grammar defined in RFC 3986 Section 3.4 must be percent-encoded, but hackney_url:make_url/3 passes the query binary directly without validation or escaping. An attacker who can control all or part of a URL passed to hackney can inject raw CRLF sequences into the query string, which are then sent as HTTP line breaks in the request target. This enables injection of arbitrary HTTP headers or splitting of the HTTP request. This issue affects hackney: from 0.13.1 before 4.0.1.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-47075
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-47075/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-47075)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-47075"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-47075/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-47075"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    This scores high on paper (CVSS 7.5) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-93.