LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2015-9236: Hapi versions less than 11.0.0 implement CORS incorrectly and allowed for configurations that at best retur...

Hapi versions less than 11.0.0 implement CORS incorrectly and allowed for configurations that at best returned inconsistent headers and at worst allowed cross-origin activities that were expected to be forbidden. If the connection has CORS enabled but one route has it off, and the route is not GET, the OPTIONS prefetch request will return the default CORS headers and then the actual request will go through and return no CORS headers. This defeats the purpose of turning CORS on the route.

UnknownCVSS not scoredNot KEV-listedUpdated
Discuss exposureBack to CVEs
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysismoderate

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

Older hapi applications could unintentionally permit browser cross-origin requests that teams believed were blocked. The issue affects hapi node module versions before 11.0.0 and depends on specific CORS configuration choices. Business risk is highest where sensitive state-changing routes rely on CORS behavior as part of access control.

Executive priority

Prioritize remediation for internet-facing or user-authenticated hapi services that process sensitive non-GET requests. This is not evidenced as actively exploited in the bundle, but it can weaken a control that teams may have assumed was preventing cross-origin activity.

Technical view

hapi before 11.0.0 handled mixed connection-level and route-level CORS settings incorrectly. With CORS enabled globally but disabled on a non-GET route, an OPTIONS preflight could return default CORS headers while the actual request proceeded without CORS headers, undermining the route-level CORS restriction.

Likely exposure

Exposure is limited to applications using the hapi node module before 11.0.0 with CORS enabled at the connection level and disabled on specific non-GET routes. The bundle does not identify affected downstream products or hosted services.

Exploitation context

The provided sources do not show active exploitation, and the CVE is not listed as KEV. Practical impact depends on whether affected routes perform sensitive actions, trust browser-origin controls, and are reachable by authenticated users in a browser context.

Researcher notes

This is a configuration-dependent CORS implementation flaw mapped to CWE-284. Evidence is specific to hapi before 11.0.0 and does not provide CVSS scoring. Treat impact analysis as application-specific, especially around sensitive non-GET routes and reliance on CORS for policy enforcement.

Mitigation direction

  • Inventory Node.js services using hapi and identify versions before 11.0.0.
  • Move affected applications off hapi versions before 11.0.0 using vendor guidance.
  • Review routes with global CORS enabled and route-level CORS disabled.
  • Do not rely on CORS as the only protection for sensitive actions.
  • Confirm authentication and anti-CSRF controls on state-changing endpoints.

Validation and detection

  • Check package manifests and lockfiles for hapi versions before 11.0.0.
  • Inspect hapi route configuration for mixed global and route-level CORS settings.
  • Review non-GET routes for sensitive operations exposed to browser users.
  • Verify expected CORS behavior in a controlled test environment.
  • Confirm server-side authorization is enforced independently of browser CORS.
Prepared
Confidence
medium
Sources
5

Public sources used

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · medium confidence lookup

CWE-284: Authorization and privilege behavior lookup

Authorization weaknesses can support privilege escalation and valid-account review, depending on exploit path. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2015-9236 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
Unknown
CVSS
Not scored
Known Exploited
No
Published
Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

0CVSS vectors
0Timeline events
0ADP providers
4Source links

CVSS and timeline data

No CVSS vectors or timeline events were available in the normalized CVE source material.

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
HackerOnehapi node module<11.0.0Listed
Weakness

CWE details

CWE-284

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-284 · source CWE mapping

Improper Access Control

Improper Access Control represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

Open CWE intelligenceSame-CWE CVEs