Skip to content

Caddy: Unicode case-folding length expansion causes incorrect split_path index in FastCGI transport

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 23, 2026 in caddyserver/caddy • Updated Feb 27, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2 (Go)

Affected versions

< 2.11.1

Patched versions

2.11.1

Description

Summary

Caddy's FastCGI path splitting logic computes the split index on a lowercased copy of the request path and then uses that byte index to slice the original path. This is unsafe for Unicode because strings.ToLower() can change UTF-8 byte length for some characters. As a result, Caddy can derive an incorrect SCRIPT_NAME/SCRIPT_FILENAME and PATH_INFO, potentially causing a request that contains .php to execute a different on-disk file than intended (path confusion). In setups where an attacker can control file contents (e.g., upload features), this can lead to unintended PHP execution of non-.php files (potential RCE depending on deployment).

Details

The issue is in github.com/caddyserver/caddy/modules/caddyhttp/fastcgi.Trasnport.splitPos() (and the subsequent slicing in buildEnv()):

lowerPath := strings.ToLower(path)
idx := strings.Index(lowerPath, strings.ToLower(split))
return idx + len(split)

The returned index is computed in the byte space of lowerPath, but buildEnv() applies it to the original path:

  • docURI = path[:splitPos]
  • pathInfo = path[splitPos:]
  • scriptName = strings.TrimSuffix(path, fc.pathInfo)
  • scriptFilename = caddyhttp.SanitizedPathJoin(fc.documentRoot, fc.scriptName)

This assumes lowerPath and path have identical byte lengths and identical byte offsets, which is not true for some Unicode case mappings. Certain characters expand when lowercased (UTF-8 byte length increases), shifting the computed index. This creates a mismatch where .php is found in the lowercased string at an offset that does not correspond to the same position in the original string, causing the split point to land later/earlier than intended.

PoC

Create a small Go program that reproduces Caddy's splitPos() behavior (compute the .php split point on a lowercased path, then use that byte index on the original path):

  1. Save this as poc.go:
package main

import (
	"fmt"
	"strings"
)

func splitPos(path string, split string) int {
	lowerPath := strings.ToLower(path)
	idx := strings.Index(lowerPath, strings.ToLower(split))
	if idx < 0 {
		return -1
	}
	return idx + len(split)
}

func main() {
	// U+023A: Ⱥ (UTF-8: C8 BA). Lowercase is ⱥ (UTF-8: E2 B1 A5), longer in bytes.
	path := "/ȺȺȺȺshell.php.txt.php"
	split := ".php"

	pos := splitPos(path, split)

	fmt.Printf("orig bytes=%d\n", len(path))
	fmt.Printf("lower bytes=%d\n", len(strings.ToLower(path)))
	fmt.Printf("splitPos=%d\n", pos)

	fmt.Printf("orig[:pos]=%q\n", path[:pos])
	fmt.Printf("orig[pos:]=%q\n", path[pos:])

	// Expected split: right after the first ".php" in the original string
	want := strings.Index(path, split) + len(split)
	fmt.Printf("expected splitPos=%d\n", want)
	fmt.Printf("expected orig[:]=%q\n", path[:want])
}
  1. Run it:
go run poc.go

Output on my side:

orig bytes=26
lower bytes=30
splitPos=22
orig[:pos]="/ȺȺȺȺshell.php.txt"
orig[pos:]=".php"
expected splitPos=18
expected orig[:]="/ȺȺȺȺshell.php"

Expected split is right after the first .php (/ȺȺȺȺshell.php). Instead, the computed split lands later and cuts the original path after shell.php.txt, leaving .php as the remainder.

Impact

Security boundary bypass/path confusion in script resolution.
In typical deployments, .php extension boundaries are relied on to decide what is executed by PHP. This bug can cause Caddy/FPM to execute a different file than intended by confusing SCRIPT_NAME/SCRIPT_FILENAME. If an attacker can place attacker-controlled content into a file that can be resolved as SCRIPT_FILENAME (common in web apps with uploads or writable directories), this can lead to unintended PHP execution of non-.php files and potentially remote code execution. Severity depends on deployment and presence of attacker-controlled file writes, but the primitive itself is remotely triggerable via crafted URLs.

This vulnerability was initially reported to FrankenPHP (GHSA-g966-83w7-6w38) by @AbdrrahimDahmani. The affected code has been copied/adapted from Caddy, which, according to research, is also affected.

The patch is a port of the FrankenPHP patch.

References

@mholt mholt published to caddyserver/caddy Feb 23, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 24, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 24, 2026
Reviewed Feb 24, 2026
Last updated Feb 27, 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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

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.
(31st percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-27590

GHSA ID

GHSA-5r3v-vc8m-m96g

Source code

Credits

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