HTTP Methods Explained: GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE and the New QUERY Standard
HTTP methods tell a server what action a client wants to perform on a resource. This can include retrieving a page, submitting data, replacing an object, modifying part of it, deleting it, or executing another type of request.
In early explanations, HTTP is often simplified as βGET reads, POST creates, PUT replaces, DELETE deletes.β While useful, this model is incomplete. POST may not create anything, PUT can create a resource, DELETE does not have to physically erase data, and PATCH does not prescribe a specific change mechanism.
The primary semantics of HTTP are described in RFC 9110. In addition to common methods, extensions exist for WebDAV, calendars, versioning, and other protocols. In June 2026, the new standardized QUERY method appeared, intended for complex requests that carry a body.
Safe and Idempotent Methods
Before examining individual methods, two key properties are important. A method is considered safe when it must not change the state of the resource at the clientβs request. Safe methods include GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, TRACE, and QUERY.
Idempotent methods can be repeated multiple times with the same expected final effect as a single execution. GET, HEAD, PUT, DELETE, OPTIONS, TRACE, and QUERY are idempotent.
The following table summarizes the main methods and their properties:
- GET β retrieve a resource β safe: yes β idempotent: yes
- HEAD β retrieve headers without body β safe: yes β idempotent: yes
- POST β submit data for processing β safe: no β idempotent: no
- PUT β replace a resource β safe: no β idempotent: yes
- PATCH β partial modification β safe: no β idempotent: no
- DELETE β delete a resource β safe: no β idempotent: yes
- OPTIONS β retrieve resource capabilities β safe: yes β idempotent: yes
- TRACE β diagnose HTTP chain β safe: yes β idempotent: yes
- CONNECT β create a tunnel β safe: no β idempotent: no
- QUERY β safe request with body β safe: yes β idempotent: yes
GET is used to obtain a representation of a resource. Browsers load pages and images via GET, applications fetch API records, and search engines request results. Because it is safe and idempotent, caches and crawlers assume repeated calls will not alter application state.
HEAD is similar to GET but omits the response body. It is used when only metadata such as status, content type, size, or ETag is needed.
POST submits data to a resource for processing. It can create users or orders, submit forms, upload files, initiate payments, or start computations. POST is neither safe nor idempotent, so repeated requests may trigger duplicate operations.
PUT sends a complete new representation of a resource. It is idempotent and may also create a resource if none exists at the target URI.
PATCH, defined in RFC 5789, allows partial resource changes. Two common formats are JSON Merge Patch (RFC 7396) and JSON Patch (RFC 6902). Servers advertise supported formats via the Accept-Patch header.
DELETE requests removal of a resource. Implementations may physically delete data, mark it as deleted, or archive it. The method remains idempotent regardless of the internal storage approach.
OPTIONS queries the capabilities of a server or resource and is commonly seen in CORS preflight requests.
TRACE provides diagnostic information by returning the request as received by the server. It is rarely used in modern applications.
CONNECT establishes a tunnel through an HTTP intermediary, classically used for HTTPS via proxies.
The QUERY method, standardized in RFC 10008 in June 2026, enables safe requests that carry a body. It solves the problem of complex searches that previously had to be sent via POST, preserving correct semantics for caches and proxies. The Accept-Query header allows servers to declare supported content formats.
WebDAV and other extensions add further methods such as PROPFIND, PROPPATCH, MKCOL, COPY, MOVE, LOCK, and UNLOCK. Additional methods exist for calendaring and versioning. The IANA registry lists dozens of registered methods, demonstrating that HTTP continues to evolve.
Related articles
From Web Perimeter Breaches to Domain Takeover: How Standoff Hackbase Trains Pentesters on Real Corporate Infrastructure
wr3dmast3r, a senior pentester and BSCP certification guide author, rose to first place on the Standoff Hackbase ranking by shifting focus from initial perimeter access to full internal infrastructure compromise. The platform replicates large-scale corporate networks from various industries, forcing participants to map service relationships, harvest credentials, escalate privileges, and chain pivots across segments. Unlike CTF challenges that end with a single flag, Hackbase tasks require building complete attack paths that can lead to data theft, process disruption, or cross-domain movement. The interview highlights practical techniques such as time-boxing hypotheses, manually modeling infrastructure after automated scans, and using AI only as an information accelerator rather than an autonomous operator. wr3dmast3r also details a memorable chain that began with a bot, moved through VPN and Outlook access, leveraged SCCM tokens for privilege escalation, and ended with compromise of a second domain containing the target system.
OTUS Publishes September Digest of Free Lessons on Linux Administration, PostgreSQL, CI/CD and Infrastructure Security
OTUS has released a new digest listing free September webinars aimed at infrastructure engineers, DevOps specialists and system administrators. The program covers practical topics including Linux server configuration, PostgreSQL 18 performance tuning, high-availability clusters with Patroni, CI/CD pipelines in GitLab, eBPF observability and infrastructure security practices. All sessions are delivered by practicing OTUS instructors who share real-world production experience. Separate tracks address RAID and LVM management, GPO policies, release management in 1C environments, Go profiling, mitmproxy traffic analysis and responsible use of AI tools for incident investigation and code review. The webinars run throughout September at 19:00 or 20:00 Moscow time and require only free registration. The digest also includes sessions on career growth from tech lead to CTO and effective responsibility distribution for team leads.
Top LLMs Misidentify Poisonous Mushrooms in Every Ninth Case, Benchmark Shows
Polish developer Piotr Migdal evaluated leading large language models on their ability to identify mushrooms from photographs, using a dataset of 1040 images covering 55 species common in Poland. The images came from the FungiTastic dataset derived from the Atlas of Danish Fungi, with expert labels and partial DNA confirmation. Models were asked to return the five most likely species names in Latin without additional training or tools. Gemini 3.8 Flash performed best with 65 percent top-1 accuracy and 85 percent top-5 accuracy, followed closely by other Gemini variants. However, safety-critical errors remained high: Gemini models labeled poisonous mushrooms as edible in roughly 11 percent of cases, while GPT-5.6 Sol reached 24 percent, Claude Opus 5 reached 29 percent, and Qwen 3.8 27B reached 36 percent. The study did not ask models directly whether a mushroom was edible; species identifications were later cross-checked against toxicity tables.
September 2026 AI Model Rankings: Fable 5.1 Tops Intelligence Index as Competition Tightens Across GPT-5.6 Sol, Grok 4.6 and Muse Spark 1.3
The beginning of September 2026 marked a rare moment when the list of top language models had to be almost entirely rewritten. Anthropic released Fable 5.1 and the limited Mythos 5.1, while Meta updated Muse Spark to version 1.3, Google introduced Gemini 3.8 Flash, and Alibaba refreshed Qwen3.8-Max. Existing models including GPT-5.6 Sol, Grok 4.6, Kimi K3, GLM-5.3 and DeepSeek V4 Pro remain competitive. Traditional rankings from smartest to least capable have become difficult because modern models operate in multiple reasoning-depth modes where low, high and max settings can differ by ten or more points on the same test. The market is better viewed as several overlapping races where Fable 5.1 leads in complex reasoning quality, GPT-5.6 Sol and Grok 4.6 deliver near-top performance at lower cost, and Muse Spark 1.3 excels in price-performance. Independent Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index scores, context windows, API pricing and tool-use capabilities now determine practical choices more than raw benchmark numbers.