HAProxy before 2.8.2 accepts # as part of the URI component, which might allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information or have unspecified other impact upon misinterpretation of a path_end rule, such as routing index.html#.png to a static server.

HAProxy before 2.7.3 may allow a bypass of access control because HTTP/1 headers are inadvertently lost in some situations, aka "request smuggling." The HTTP header parsers in HAProxy may accept empty header field names, which could be used to truncate the list of HTTP headers and thus make some headers disappear after being parsed and processed for HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1. For HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, the impact is limited because the headers disappear before being parsed and processed, as if they had not been sent by the client. The fixed versions are 2.7.3, 2.6.9, 2.5.12, 2.4.22, 2.2.29, and 2.0.31.

A flaw was found in the way HAProxy processed HTTP responses containing the "Set-Cookie2" header. This flaw could allow an attacker to send crafted HTTP response packets which lead to an infinite loop, eventually resulting in a denial of service condition. The highest threat from this vulnerability is availability.

An integer overflow exists in HAProxy 2.0 through 2.5 in htx_add_header that can be exploited to perform an HTTP request smuggling attack, allowing an attacker to bypass all configured http-request HAProxy ACLs and possibly other ACLs.

An issue was discovered in HAProxy 2.2 before 2.2.16, 2.3 before 2.3.13, and 2.4 before 2.4.3. It can lead to a situation with an attacker-controlled HTTP Host header, because a mismatch between Host and authority is mishandled.

An issue was discovered in HAProxy 2.0 before 2.0.24, 2.2 before 2.2.16, 2.3 before 2.3.13, and 2.4 before 2.4.3. An HTTP method name may contain a space followed by the name of a protected resource. It is possible that a server would interpret this as a request for that protected resource, such as in the "GET /admin? HTTP/1.1 /static/images HTTP/1.1" example.

An issue was discovered in HAProxy 2.2 before 2.2.16, 2.3 before 2.3.13, and 2.4 before 2.4.3. It does not ensure that the scheme and path portions of a URI have the expected characters. For example, the authority field (as observed on a target HTTP/2 server) might differ from what the routing rules were intended to achieve.