Search
Total
7 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-21647 | 1 Puma | 1 Puma | 2024-01-11 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| Puma is a web server for Ruby/Rack applications built for parallelism. Prior to version 6.4.2, puma exhibited incorrect behavior when parsing chunked transfer encoding bodies in a way that allowed HTTP request smuggling. Fixed versions limits the size of chunk extensions. Without this limit, an attacker could cause unbounded resource (CPU, network bandwidth) consumption. This vulnerability has been fixed in versions 6.4.2 and 5.6.8. | |||||
| CVE-2020-5247 | 2 Puma, Ruby-lang | 2 Puma, Ruby | 2022-05-26 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| In Puma (RubyGem) before 4.3.2 and before 3.12.3, if an application using Puma allows untrusted input in a response header, an attacker can use newline characters (i.e. `CR`, `LF` or`/r`, `/n`) to end the header and inject malicious content, such as additional headers or an entirely new response body. This vulnerability is known as HTTP Response Splitting. While not an attack in itself, response splitting is a vector for several other attacks, such as cross-site scripting (XSS). This is related to CVE-2019-16254, which fixed this vulnerability for the WEBrick Ruby web server. This has been fixed in versions 4.3.2 and 3.12.3 by checking all headers for line endings and rejecting headers with those characters. | |||||
| CVE-2019-16770 | 1 Puma | 1 Puma | 2022-05-26 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| In Puma before versions 3.12.2 and 4.3.1, a poorly-behaved client could use keepalive requests to monopolize Puma's reactor and create a denial of service attack. If more keepalive connections to Puma are opened than there are threads available, additional connections will wait permanently if the attacker sends requests frequently enough. This vulnerability is patched in Puma 4.3.1 and 3.12.2. | |||||
| CVE-2022-24790 | 1 Puma | 1 Puma | 2022-05-24 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| Puma is a simple, fast, multi-threaded, parallel HTTP 1.1 server for Ruby/Rack applications. When using Puma behind a proxy that does not properly validate that the incoming HTTP request matches the RFC7230 standard, Puma and the frontend proxy may disagree on where a request starts and ends. This would allow requests to be smuggled via the front-end proxy to Puma. The vulnerability has been fixed in 5.6.4 and 4.3.12. Users are advised to upgrade as soon as possible. Workaround: when deploying a proxy in front of Puma, turning on any and all functionality to make sure that the request matches the RFC7230 standard. | |||||
| CVE-2021-29509 | 1 Puma | 1 Puma | 2021-05-24 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| Puma is a concurrent HTTP 1.1 server for Ruby/Rack applications. The fix for CVE-2019-16770 was incomplete. The original fix only protected existing connections that had already been accepted from having their requests starved by greedy persistent-connections saturating all threads in the same process. However, new connections may still be starved by greedy persistent-connections saturating all threads in all processes in the cluster. A `puma` server which received more concurrent `keep-alive` connections than the server had threads in its threadpool would service only a subset of connections, denying service to the unserved connections. This problem has been fixed in `puma` 4.3.8 and 5.3.1. Setting `queue_requests false` also fixes the issue. This is not advised when using `puma` without a reverse proxy, such as `nginx` or `apache`, because you will open yourself to slow client attacks (e.g. slowloris). The fix is very small and a git patch is available for those using unsupported versions of Puma. | |||||
| CVE-2020-11077 | 1 Puma | 1 Puma | 2020-10-07 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| In Puma (RubyGem) before 4.3.5 and 3.12.6, a client could smuggle a request through a proxy, causing the proxy to send a response back to another unknown client. If the proxy uses persistent connections and the client adds another request in via HTTP pipelining, the proxy may mistake it as the first request's body. Puma, however, would see it as two requests, and when processing the second request, send back a response that the proxy does not expect. If the proxy has reused the persistent connection to Puma to send another request for a different client, the second response from the first client will be sent to the second client. This is a similar but different vulnerability from CVE-2020-11076. The problem has been fixed in Puma 3.12.6 and Puma 4.3.5. | |||||
| CVE-2020-11076 | 1 Puma | 1 Puma | 2020-10-07 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| In Puma (RubyGem) before 4.3.4 and 3.12.5, an attacker could smuggle an HTTP response, by using an invalid transfer-encoding header. The problem has been fixed in Puma 3.12.5 and Puma 4.3.4. | |||||