Skip to content

Netty's Default QUIC token handler accepts any client-supplied token

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 5, 2026 in netty/netty • Updated Jun 12, 2026

Package

maven io.netty:netty-codec-classes-quic (Maven)

Affected versions

>= 4.2.0.Final, <= 4.2.14.Final

Patched versions

4.2.15.Final

Description

NoQuicTokenHandler is the tokenHandler used when the application does not set one. Its writeToken() returns false (server will not send Retry — acceptable), but validateToken() unconditionally return 0. In QuicheQuicServerCodec.handlePacket(), a non-negative return from validateToken() is interpreted as 'token is valid, ODCID starts at offset 0', causing the server to call quiche_accept as if the client's address had been validated by a Retry round-trip. Per RFC 9000 §8.1, a validated address lifts the 3× anti-amplification send limit. Thus any attacker who includes ANY non-empty token bytes in an Initial packet — with a spoofed victim source IP — causes the Netty server to treat the victim as validated and reflect full-size handshake flights (certificates, etc.) toward it without the 3× cap. The correct 'no token handler' semantics would be to return -1 (invalid) so the normal un-validated path and amplification limit apply.

References

@chrisvest chrisvest published to netty/netty Jun 5, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 8, 2026
Reviewed Jun 8, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jun 12, 2026
Last updated Jun 12, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(3rd percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Verification of Source of a Communication Channel

The product establishes a communication channel to handle an incoming request that has been initiated by an actor, but it does not properly verify that the request is coming from the expected origin. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-44894

GHSA ID

GHSA-cmm3-54f8-px4j

Source code

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.