Skip to content

Caddy: Unsafe Unicode Handling in FastCGI splitPos Allows Execution of Non-PHP Files

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 13, 2026 in caddyserver/caddy • Updated May 18, 2026

Package

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

Affected versions

>= 2.7.0, <= 2.10.2

Patched versions

2.11.3

Description

Summary

The FastCGI transport's splitPos() in modules/caddyhttp/reverseproxy/fastcgi/fastcgi.go misuses golang.org/x/text/search with search.IgnoreCase when the request path contains a non-ASCII byte. Two distinct flaws in that fallback let an attacker mislead Caddy's FastCGI splitting into treating a non-.php (or other configured split_path extension) file as a script. In any deployment where the attacker can place content into a file served via FastCGI (uploads, file storage, etc.), this can be escalated to remote code execution by crafting a URL whose path triggers either flaw.

This function was adapted from FrankenPHP's code (see the source comment) and inherits the same bugs. Both were originally reported against FrankenPHP by @KC1zs4 as GHSA-3g8v-8r37-cgjm (which absorbed the duplicate GHSA-v4h7-cj44-8fc8). Credit for finding the underlying flaws belongs to @KC1zs4.

Details

var splitSearchNonASCII = search.New(language.Und, search.IgnoreCase)

func (t Transport) splitPos(path string) int {
	if len(t.SplitPath) == 0 {
		return 0
	}
	pathLen := len(path)
	for _, split := range t.SplitPath {
		splitLen := len(split)
		for i := range pathLen {
			if path[i] >= utf8.RuneSelf {
				if _, end := splitSearchNonASCII.IndexString(path, split); end > -1 {
					return end
				}
				break
			}
			if i+splitLen > pathLen {
				continue
			}
			match := true
			for j := range splitLen {
				c := path[i+j]
				if c >= utf8.RuneSelf {
					if _, end := splitSearchNonASCII.IndexString(path, split); end > -1 {
						return end
					}
					break // <-- flaw 1: 'match' is still true
				}
				if 'A' <= c && c <= 'Z' {
					c += 'a' - 'A'
				}
				if c != split[j] {
					match = false
					break
				}
			}
			if match {
				return i + splitLen
			}
		}
	}
	return -1
}

Flaw 1 — Control-flow: stale match after inner non-ASCII fallback

In the inner for j loop, when a byte satisfies c >= utf8.RuneSelf and splitSearchNonASCII.IndexString(...) returns -1, the loop breaks without setting match = false. The outer code then evaluates if match { return i + splitLen } with match still true, returning a position as if the configured extension had been matched. The script-name suffix actually present at that offset is whatever bytes the attacker chose, so a file named name.<U+00A1>.txt gets routed as PHP.

Flaw 2 — Unicode equivalence: search.IgnoreCase folds non-ASCII lookalikes onto ASCII

search.New(language.Und, search.IgnoreCase) performs Unicode equivalence matching (compatibility decomposition + case folding), which goes far beyond the ASCII-only case folding the surrounding code is built for. Many code points fold onto ASCII ., p, h, p, so a path containing ﹒php, .php, .php, .ⓟⓗⓟ, .𝗽𝗵𝗽, .𝓅𝒽𝓅, .𝖕𝖍𝖕, etc. is reported as .php.

Both flaws share the same root cause: invoking search.IgnoreCase to match an ASCII-only, validated-lower-case SplitPath entry against an arbitrary path. Provision() already guarantees every entry is ASCII and lower-cased, so any byte >= utf8.RuneSelf in the path can never be part of a legitimate match — but the fallback ignored that guarantee.

PoC

Run against a Caddy build serving FastCGI to PHP-FPM (or any FastCGI app where script lookup is gated by split_path). Caddyfile:

:8080 {
    root * /app/public
    php_fastcgi unix//run/php/php-fpm.sock
}

Place attacker-controlled files in /app/public:

  • /app/public/poc-match-unset.\xc2\xa1.<?php echo "marker=flaw1\n";
  • /app/public/poc-search-norm.𝗽𝗵𝗽<?php echo "marker=flaw2\n";

Trigger:

# baseline (correctly NOT routed to PHP)
curl -i --path-as-is "http://127.0.0.1:8080/poc-match-unset.txt/trigger"
curl -i --path-as-is "http://127.0.0.1:8080/poc-search-norm/trigger"

# flaw 1 — the .¡.txt file ends up as SCRIPT_FILENAME
curl -i --path-as-is "http://127.0.0.1:8080/poc-match-unset.%C2%A1.txt/trigger"

# flaw 2 — the .𝗽𝗵𝗽 file ends up as SCRIPT_FILENAME
curl -i --path-as-is "http://127.0.0.1:8080/poc-search-norm.%F0%9D%97%BD%F0%9D%97%B5%F0%9D%97%BD.anything-after-payload.php/trigger"

Both crafted requests respond with the marker payload from the non-.php file, confirming arbitrary code execution through the body of attacker-controlled files.

A standalone reproducer of splitPos() in isolation (no Caddy build needed) is included in GHSA-3g8v-8r37-cgjm; the function in this module is the same logic, so the same payloads apply.

Impact

Comparable to the previous FastCGI split_path issue (GHSA-g966-83w7-6w38 / CVE-2026-24895) but with a stricter precondition: the attacker needs the ability to place content into a file whose name matches one of the bypass patterns (the Unicode lookalike forms or a name containing a non-ASCII byte after a .). Where that precondition holds — common in upload endpoints, user-content stores, package mirrors — the bypass yields RCE in the FastCGI upstream via a single crafted URL, without authentication, over the network.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H — High (8.1).

Patch

Drop the golang.org/x/text/search fallback entirely and treat any byte >= utf8.RuneSelf in the path as a non-match. SplitPath entries are validated ASCII-only and lower-cased upstream, so this preserves correct behavior for every legitimate path while making the Unicode bypasses unrepresentable. The replacement is a tight byte loop with no library calls in the hot path. See fix/fastcgi-splitpos-unicode-bypass (commit 4ddad83c) for the implementation and regression tests.

Credit

Both flaws were originally found and reported by @KC1zs4 against FrankenPHP, where the offending splitPos() function was first introduced before being adapted into this module. The Caddy maintainers thank @KC1zs4 for the high-quality reports.

References

@mholt mholt published to caddyserver/caddy May 13, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 18, 2026
Reviewed May 18, 2026
Last updated May 18, 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
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

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:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

EPSS score

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.

Improper Handling of Unicode Encoding

The product does not properly handle when an input contains Unicode encoding. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity

The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-45135

GHSA ID

GHSA-m675-2p33-xv9g

Source code

Credits

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