In Symfony http-foundation prior to versions 5.4.56, 6.4.50, 7.4.23, and 8.1.11, Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\RequestMatcher, and RequestMatcher\MethodRequestMatcher which replaces it from 6.2.x on, matches a request against a list of HTTP methods. These compared the request method to the list verbatim, while the router serves a HEAD request with the GET handler, as HTTP semantics require.
This came after the incomplete fix of CVE-2026-45075 https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-6439-2f28-8p8q , which addressed the same gap in the #[IsGranted], #[IsSignatureValid] and #[IsCsrfTokenValid] attributes only.
Security rules configured to apply only to GET requests could therefore be bypassed by sending a HEAD request to the same URL. Although HEAD responses contain no body, attackers could still access response headers and trigger the controller's execution, including any side effects.
This issue also affects firewalls configured with methods: [GET]. A HEAD request would not match that firewall and could instead be handled by another matching firewall or no firewall at all. Applications using these vulnerable request matchers directly, including through a custom firewall request_matcher, could also be affected.
The issue affects symfony/http-foundation through v5.4.55, v6.x through 6.4.49, v7.x through v7.4.22, and v8.x through v8.1.10.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-10). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it