# HTTP Response Smuggling / Desync
{% hint style="success" %}
Learn & practice AWS Hacking:
[**HackTricks Training AWS Red Team Expert (ARTE)**](https://training.hacktricks.xyz/courses/arte)\
Learn & practice GCP Hacking: 
[**HackTricks Training GCP Red Team Expert (GRTE)**](https://training.hacktricks.xyz/courses/grte)
Support HackTricks
* Check the [**subscription plans**](https://github.com/sponsors/carlospolop)!
* **Join the** 💬 [**Discord group**](https://discord.gg/hRep4RUj7f) or the [**telegram group**](https://t.me/peass) or **follow** us on **Twitter** 🐦 [**@hacktricks\_live**](https://twitter.com/hacktricks\_live)**.**
* **Share hacking tricks by submitting PRs to the** [**HackTricks**](https://github.com/carlospolop/hacktricks) and [**HackTricks Cloud**](https://github.com/carlospolop/hacktricks-cloud) github repos.
{% endhint %}
**The technique of this post was taken from the video:** [**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suxDcYViwao\&t=1343s**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suxDcYViwao\&t=1343s)
## HTTP Request Queue Desynchronisation
First of all, this technique **abuses a HTTP Request Smuggling vulnerability**, so you need to know what that is:
The **main** **difference** between this technique and a common HTTP Request smuggling is that **instead** of **attacking** the **request** of the **victim** **by adding a prefix to it**, we are going to **leak or modify the response the victim receives**. This is done by, instead of sending 1 request and a half to abuse the HTTP Request smuggling, **send 2 complete requests to desynchronise the proxies responses queue**.
This is because we are going to be able to **desynchronise the response queue** so the **response** from the **legit** **request** of the **victim is sent to the attacker**, or by **injecting attackers controlled content in the response to the victim**.
### HTTP Pipeline Desync
HTTP/1.1 allows to ask for **different resources without needing to wait for previous ones**. Therefore, if there is a **proxy** in the **middle**, it's the proxies task to **maintain a synchronised match of requests sent to the backend and responses coming from it**.
However, there is a problem desynchronising the responses queue. If an attacker send a HTTP Response smuggling attack and the responses to the **initial request and the smuggled one are responded immediately**, the smuggled response won't be inserted inside the queue of the victim response but will **just be discarded as an error**.
.png>)
Therefore, it's needed that the **smuggled** **request** **takes more time to be processed** inside the back-end server. Therefore, by the time the smuggled request is processed, the communication with the attacker will be over.
If in this specific situation a **victim has sent a request** and the **smuggled request is responded before** the legitimate request, the **smuggled response will be sent to the victim**. Therefore, the attacker will be **controlling the request "performed" by the victim**.
Moreover, is the **attacker then perform a request** and the **legitimate response** to the **victim** request is **answered** **before** the attackers request. The **response to the victim is going to be sent to the attacker**, **stealing** the response to the victim (which can contains for example the header **Set-Cookie**).
.png>)
.png>)
### Multiple Nested Injections
Another **interesting difference** with common **HTTP Request Smuggling** is that, in a common smuggling attack, the **goal** is to **modify the beginning of the victims request** so it perform an unexpected action. In a **HTTP Response smuggling attack**, as you are **sending full requests**, you can **inject in one payload tens of responses** that will be **desynchronising tens of users** that will be **receiving** the **injected** **responses**.
Apart from being able to **distribute more easily tens of exploits** across legitimate users, this could also be used to cause a **DoS** in the server.
### Exploit Organisation
As explained previously, in order to abuse this technique, it's needed that the **first smuggled message** into the server **requires a lot of time to be processed**.
This **time consuming request is enough** if we just want to **try to steal the victims response.** But if you want to perform a more complex exploit this will be a common structure for the exploit.
First of all the **initial** request abusing **HTTP** **Request** **smuggling**, then the **time consuming request** and then **1 or more payload requests** that whose responses will be sent to the victims.
## Abusing HTTP Response Queue Desynchronisation
### Capturing other users' requests
As with HTTP Request Smuggling known payloads, you can **steal the victims request** with one important difference: In this case you just need the **send content to be reflected in the response**, **no persistent storage** is needed.
First, the attacker send a payload containing a **final POST request with the reflected parameter** at the end and a large Content-Length
.png>)
Then, once the **initial request** (blue) was **processed** and **while** the **sleepy** one is being processed (yellow) the **next request that arrives from a victim** is going to be **appended in the queue just after the reflected parameter**:
.png>)
Then, the **victim** will **receive** the **response to the sleepy** request and if in the meantime the **attacker** **sent** **another** **request**, the **response from the reflected content request will be sent to him**.
## Response Desynchronisation
Up to this point, we have learned how to abuse HTTP Request Smuggling attacks to **control** the **request** **whose** **response** a **client** is going to **receive** and how you can then **steal the response that was meant for the victim**.
But it's still possible to **desynchronise even** more the responses.
There are interesting requests like **HEAD** request that are specified to not have **any content inside the responses body** and that should (must) **contain the Content-Length** of the request like **if it was a GET request**.
Therefore, if an attacker **injects** a **HEAD** request, like in this images:
.png>)
Then, **once the blue one is responded to the attacker**, the next victims request is going to be introduced in the queue:
.png>)
Then, the **victim** will **receive** the **response** from the **HEAD** request, which is **going to contain a Content-Length but no content at all**. Therefore, the proxy **won't send this response** to the victim, but will **wait** for some **content**, which actually is going to be **response to the yellow request** (also injected by the attacker):
.png>)
### Content Confusion
Following the previous example, knowing that you can **control the body** of the request whose response is going to receive the victim and that a **HEAD** **response** usually contains in its headers the **Content-Type and the Content-Length**, you can **send a request like the following** one to **cause XSS** in the victim without the page being vulnerable to XSS:
.png>)
### Cache Poisoning
Abusing the previously commented response desynchronisation Content Confusion attack, i**f the cache stores the response to the request performed by the victim and this response is an injected one causing a XSS, then the cache is poisoned**.
Malicious request containing the XSS payload:
.png>)
Malicious response to the victim that contains the header that indicates to the cache to store the response:
.png>)
{% hint style="warning" %}
Note that in this case if the **"victim" is the attacker** he can now perform **cache poisoning in arbitrary URLs** as he can **control the URL that is going to be cached** with the malicious response.
{% endhint %}
### Web Cache Deception
This attack is similar to the previous one, but **instead of injecting a payload inside the cache, the attacker will be caching victim information inside of the cache:**
.png>)
### Response Splitting
The **goal** of this attack is to abuse again the **response** **desynchronisation** in order to **make the proxy send a 100% attacker generated response**.
In order to achieve this, the attacker needs to find an endpoint of the web application that is **reflecting some values inside the response** and **know the content length of the HEAD response**.
He will send a **exploit** like:
.png>)
After the first request is resolved and sent back to the attacker, the **victims request is added into the queue**:
.png>)
The victim will receive as response the **HEAD response + the content of the second request response (containing part of the reflected data):**
.png>)
However, note how the **reflected data had a size according to the Content-Length** of the **HEAD** response that **generated a valid HTTP response in the response queue**.
Therefore, the **next request of the second victim** will be **receiving** as **response something completely crafted by the attacker**. As the response is completely crafted by the attacker he can also **make the proxy cache the response**.
{% hint style="success" %}
Learn & practice AWS Hacking:[**HackTricks Training AWS Red Team Expert (ARTE)**](https://training.hacktricks.xyz/courses/arte)\
Learn & practice GCP Hacking: [**HackTricks Training GCP Red Team Expert (GRTE)**](https://training.hacktricks.xyz/courses/grte)
Support HackTricks
* Check the [**subscription plans**](https://github.com/sponsors/carlospolop)!
* **Join the** 💬 [**Discord group**](https://discord.gg/hRep4RUj7f) or the [**telegram group**](https://t.me/peass) or **follow** us on **Twitter** 🐦 [**@hacktricks\_live**](https://twitter.com/hacktricks\_live)**.**
* **Share hacking tricks by submitting PRs to the** [**HackTricks**](https://github.com/carlospolop/hacktricks) and [**HackTricks Cloud**](https://github.com/carlospolop/hacktricks-cloud) github repos.
{% endhint %}