Advisories for Gem/Puma package

Puma is vulnerable to source IP spoofing when set_remote_address proxy_protocol: :v1 is enabled and persistent connections are used. PROXY protocol v1 is a connection-level protocol. Support was added to Puma in v5.5.0. A proxy sends one PROXY header at the beginning of a TCP connection, before any HTTP data. Puma incorrectly re-parsed PROXY protocol headers after each keep-alive request on the same connection. An attacker able to send HTTP requests …

PROXY protocol support for Puma was added in version 5.5.0. When PROXY protocol v1 support is enabled, Puma reads incoming bytes into an internal buffer. It waits for "\r\n" to determine whether a PROXY v1 line is present. If an attacker opens a TCP connection and continuously sends bytes without CRLF, Puma keeps appending to this pre-parse buffer. This can cause unbounded in-process memory growth and additional CPU cost from …

Clients could clobber values set by intermediate proxies (such as X-Forwarded-For) by providing a underscore version of the same header (X-Forwarded_For). Any users trusting headers set by their proxy may be affected. Attackers may be able to downgrade connections to HTTP (non-SSL) or redirect responses, which could cause confidentiality leaks if combined with a separate MITM attack.

Prior to versions 6.4.2 and 5.6.8, puma exhibited dangerous behavior when parsing chunked transfer encoding bodies. Fixed versions limit the size of chunk extensions. Without this limit, an attacker could cause unbounded resource (CPU, network bandwidth) consumption.

Puma is a Ruby/Rack web server built for parallelism. Prior to versions 6.3.1 and 5.6.7, puma exhibited incorrect behavior when parsing chunked transfer encoding bodies and zero-length Content-Length headers in a way that allowed HTTP request smuggling. Severity of this issue is highly dependent on the nature of the web site using puma is. This could be caused by either incorrect parsing of trailing fields in chunked transfer encoding bodies …

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 …

Puma is a Ruby/Rack web server built for parallelism. Prior to puma version 5.6.2, puma may not always call close on the response body. Rails, prior to version 7.0.2.2, depended on the response body being closed in order for its CurrentAttributes implementation to work correctly. The combination of these two behaviors (Puma not closing the body + Rails' Executor implementation) causes information leakage. This problem is fixed in Puma versions …

Prior to puma version 5.5.0, using puma with a proxy which forwards LF characters as line endings could allow HTTP request smuggling. A client could smuggle a request through a proxy, causing the proxy to send a response back to another unknown client. This behavior (forwarding LF characters as line endings) is very uncommon amongst proxy servers, so we have graded the impact here as "low". Puma is only aware …

Puma is a concurrent HTTP 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 …

In Puma (RubyGem), an attacker could smuggle an HTTP response, by using an invalid transfer-encoding header.

In Puma (RubyGem), 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 …

In Puma (RubyGem), if an application using Puma allows untrusted input in an early-hints header, an attacker can use a carriage return character 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).

In Puma (RubyGem), 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 …

In Puma, 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.