header lock
What Anthropic’s Mythos Means for the Future of Cybersecurity
28 April 2026
the hacker news
Researchers Discover Critical GitHub CVE-2026-3854 RCE Flaw Exploitable via Single Git Push
28 April 2026

Resources

HTTP Requests with X-Vercel-Set-Bypass-Cookie Header, (Tue, Apr 28th)

This weekend, we saw a few requests to our honeypot that included an “X-Vercel-Set-Bypass-Cookie” header. A sample request:

GET / HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,image/avif,image/webp,*/ *;q=0.8
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br
Cache-Control: no-cache
Pragma: no-cache
Connection: keep-alive
X-Vercel-Set-Bypass-Cookie: samesite-none-secure
Upgrade-Insecure-Requests: 1
X-Forwarded-From: 21.235.92.139
X-Real-Iphone: 21.235.92.139
Referer: [redacted, same as "Host" header]
Host: [redacted]

Vercel documents the “x-vercel-protection-bypass” header(note: no “Cookie” part) as a secret that can be configured to disable certain protections during testing. This type of bypass feature is common in various platforms. In particular, web application firewall features often need to be disabled to allow higher request rates during CI/CD pipeline operations. The value set in the header is a user-configurable secret[1].

The X-Vercel-Set-Bypass-Cookie allows testing in browsers and maintains the bypass by having the server set a cookie to indicate the bypass. There are two options according to Vercel’s documentation:

  1. True: enables the cookie
  2. samesitenone: enables the cookie, and set the same-site property to none.

I did not see the “samesite-none-secure” documented by Vercel.

The most likely intention of the header is to relax security settings, maybe even steal secrets, should Vercel expose them in the cookie. I have not had a chance to test the request against a Vercel website. Any input as to the intent is welcome.

The request was also set via an open proxy, likely to protect the attacker’s identity, but it failed due to the configured proxy headers.

[1] https://vercel.com/docs/deployment-protection/methods-to-bypass-deployment-protection/protection-bypass-automation 


Johannes B. Ullrich, Ph.D. , Dean of Research, SANS.edu
Twitter|

(c) SANS Internet Storm Center. https://isc.sans.edu Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Related resources

28 March 2026

TeamPCP Supply Chain Campaign: Update 003 – Operational Tempo Shift as Campaign Enters Monetization Phase With No New Compromises in 48 Hours, (Sat, Mar 28th)

This is the third update to the TeamPCP supply chain campaign threat intelligence report, “When the Security Scanner Became the Weapon” (v3.0, March 25, 2026). Update 002 covered developments through March 27, […]