GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR

GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR is a high-severity security vulnerability in praxis-proxy (rust), affecting versions < 0.5.2. It is fixed in 0.5.2.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

Praxis affected by HTTP/2 Bomb

Multiple denial-of-service vulnerabilities have been discovered in HTTP/2 server implementations. All have been rated with a severity impact of Important. The vulnerabilities target HPACK, the header compression scheme in HTTP/2, where a small request can trigger large memory allocations on the server.

Details

Credit to the original researcher, I'm mostly just run their tool against the code base.

Security Bulletins: https://access.redhat.com/security/vulnerabilities/RHSB-2026-007
Exploit details: https://blog.calif.io/p/codex-discovered-a-hidden-http2-bomb

This bug was fixed in upstream pingora v0.8.1, but our fork (v0.8.2) is missing this important PR to set the default h2 options. (edited)

PoC

  • Generate certificates
openssl req -x509 -newkey ec -pkeyopt ec_paramgen_curve:prime256v1 -keyout server.key -out server.crt -days 3650 -nodes -subj "/CN=localhost"
  • Create praxis config as follow
listeners:
  - name: web
    address: "0.0.0.0:8443"
    tls:
      certificates:
        - cert_path: /etc/praxis/server.crt
          key_path: /etc/praxis/server.key
    filter_chains: [main]

filter_chains:
  - name: main
    filters:
      - filter: router
        routes:
          - path_prefix: "/"
            host: "example.api.com"
            cluster: backend
      - filter: load_balancer
        clusters:
          - name: backend
            endpoints:
              - "httpbingo.org:443"
            tls:
                verify: false
  • Start the container
docker run --name praxis --user $(id -u):$(id -g) -it --rm -p 8443:8443 -v ./config.yaml:/etc/praxis/config.yaml -v ./server.crt:/etc/praxis/server.crt -v ./server.key:/etc/praxis/server.key ghcr.io/praxis-proxy/praxis:0.5.1
  • Check container memory
$ docker stats

CONTAINER ID   NAME            CPU %     MEM USAGE / LIMIT     MEM %     NET I/O         BLOCK I/O        PIDS
362cfa472792   praxis          0.00%     6.473MiB / 62.49GiB   0.01%     7.57kB / 126B   0B / 0B          22
  • In another terminal run the attack
./hpack_bomb.py --host 127.0.0.1 --port 8443 -n 10
  • Observer the container memory
98b040c5e5ad   praxis          0.13%     687.1MiB / 62.49GiB   1.07%     41.6MB / 362kB   0B / 0B          23

Memory usage spiked to around 700MB, and even after the attack ended, the memory was not freed up.

  • Patch the code to set h2options
diff --git a/protocol/src/http/pingora/handler/mod.rs b/protocol/src/http/pingora/handler/mod.rs
index dc684ad..fc59234 100644
--- a/protocol/src/http/pingora/handler/mod.rs
+++ b/protocol/src/http/pingora/handler/mod.rs
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ use std::{collections::HashMap, sync::Arc, time::Duration};

 use arc_swap::ArcSwap;
 use bytes::Bytes;
+use pingora_core::protocols::http::v2::server::H2Options;
 use pingora_core::{Result, apps::HttpServerOptions, server::Server, services::listening::Service};
 use pingora_proxy::{Session, http_proxy};
 use praxis_core::{config::ABSOLUTE_MAX_BODY_BYTES, connectivity::Upstream};
@@ -151,6 +152,11 @@ where
     let service_name = format!("http-proxy:{name}", name = listener.name);
     let mut proxy = http_proxy(&server.configuration, handler);
     proxy.server_options = Some(h2c_server_options());
+    let mut h2_options = H2Options::new();
+    h2_options.max_header_list_size(65536);
+    h2_options.max_concurrent_streams(32);
+    proxy.h2_options = Some(h2_options);
+
     let mut service = Service::new(service_name, proxy);
     if let Some(tx) = super::listener::add_listener(&mut service, listener)? {
         cert_watcher_shutdowns.push(tx);
  • Rerun the attack, the memory usage looks a lot better now
CONTAINER ID   NAME      CPU %     MEM USAGE / LIMIT     MEM %     NET I/O           BLOCK I/O    PIDS
b1c82abca409   praxis    0.04%     10.09MiB / 62.49GiB   0.02%     1.16MB / 23.4kB   950kB / 0B   23

Impact

GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR has a CVSS score of 7.5 (High). The vector is network-reachable, no privileges required, and no user interaction. 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 (0.5.2); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

praxis-proxy (< 0.5.2)

Security releases

praxis-proxy → 0.5.2 (rust)

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

Upgrade praxis-proxy to 0.5.2 or later to resolve this vulnerability.

Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR? GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR is a high-severity security vulnerability in praxis-proxy (rust), affecting versions < 0.5.2. It is fixed in 0.5.2.
  2. How severe is GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR? GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR has a CVSS score of 7.5 (High). 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.
  3. Which versions of praxis-proxy are affected by GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR? praxis-proxy (rust) versions < 0.5.2 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR? Yes. GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR is fixed in 0.5.2. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR 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
  6. What actually determines whether GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR 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.
  7. How do I fix GHSA-CJCG-CXMH-9WCR? Upgrade praxis-proxy to 0.5.2 or later.

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.