🚨 Your current dependencies have known security vulnerabilities 🚨
This dependency update fixes known security vulnerabilities. Please see the details below and assess their impact carefully. We recommend to merge and deploy this as soon as possible!
Here is everything you need to know about this upgrade. Please take a good look at what changed and the test results before merging this pull request.
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 of a single proxy server which has this behavior.
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.
Patches
This vulnerability was patched in Puma 5.5.1 and 4.3.9.
Workarounds
This vulnerability only affects Puma installations without any proxy in front.
Use a proxy which does not forward LF characters as line endings.
Proxies which do not forward LF characters as line endings:
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 of a single proxy server which has this behavior.
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.
Patches
This vulnerability was patched in Puma 5.5.1 and 4.3.9.
Workarounds
This vulnerability only affects Puma installations without any proxy in front.
Use a proxy which does not forward LF characters as line endings.
Proxies which do not forward LF characters as line endings:
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.
Patches
This problem has been fixed in puma 4.3.8 and 5.3.1.
Workarounds
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 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.
Patches
This problem has been fixed in puma 4.3.8 and 5.3.1.
Workarounds
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).
This is a similar but different vulnerability to the one patched in 3.12.5 and 4.3.4.
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.
Patches
The problem has been fixed in Puma 3.12.6 and Puma 4.3.5.
This is a similar but different vulnerability to the one patched in 3.12.5 and 4.3.4.
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.
Patches
The problem has been fixed in Puma 3.12.6 and Puma 4.3.5.
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).
This is related to CVE-2020-5247,
which fixed this vulnerability but only for regular responses.
Patches
This has been fixed in 4.3.3 and 3.12.4.
Workarounds
Users can not allow untrusted/user input in the Early Hints response header.
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).
This is related to CVE-2020-5247,
which fixed this vulnerability but only for regular responses.
Patches
This has been fixed in 4.3.3 and 3.12.4.
Workarounds
Users can not allow untrusted/user input in the Early Hints response header.
If an application using Puma allows untrusted input in a response header,
an attacker can use newline characters (i.e. CR, LF) 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).
If an application using Puma allows untrusted input in a response header,
an attacker can use newline characters (i.e. CR, LF) 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).
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.
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.
Depfu will automatically keep this PR conflict-free, as long as you don't add any commits to this branch yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting with @depfu rebase.
All Depfu comment commands
@depfu rebase
Rebases against your default branch and redoes this update
@depfu recreate
Recreates this PR, overwriting any edits that you've made to it
@depfu merge
Merges this PR once your tests are passing and conflicts are resolved
@depfu close
Closes this PR and deletes the branch
@depfu reopen
Restores the branch and reopens this PR (if it's closed)
@depfu pause
Ignores all future updates for this dependency and closes this PR
@depfu pause [minor|major]
Ignores all future minor/major updates for this dependency and closes this PR
@depfu resume
Future versions of this dependency will create PRs again (leaves this PR as is)
depfu[bot]
commented
2 years ago
🚨 Your current dependencies have known security vulnerabilities 🚨
This dependency update fixes known security vulnerabilities. Please see the details below and assess their impact carefully. We recommend to merge and deploy this as soon as possible!
Here is everything you need to know about this upgrade. Please take a good look at what changed and the test results before merging this pull request.
What changed?
✳️ puma (3.12.1 → 5.5.2) · Repo · Changelog
Security Advisories 🚨
🚨 Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request Smuggling') in puma
🚨 Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request Smuggling') in puma
🚨 Keepalive Connections Causing Denial Of Service in puma
🚨 Keepalive Connections Causing Denial Of Service in puma
🚨 HTTP Smuggling via Transfer-Encoding Header in Puma
🚨 HTTP Smuggling via Transfer-Encoding Header in Puma
🚨 HTTP Smuggling via Transfer-Encoding Header in Puma
🚨 HTTP Smuggling via Transfer-Encoding Header in Puma
🚨 HTTP Response Splitting (Early Hints) in Puma
🚨 HTTP Response Splitting (Early Hints) in Puma
🚨 HTTP Response Splitting vulnerability in puma
🚨 HTTP Response Splitting vulnerability in puma
🚨 Keepalive thread overload/DoS in puma
🚨 Keepalive thread overload/DoS in puma
Release Notes
Too many releases to show here. View the full release notes.
Commits
See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by more commits than we can show here.
Depfu will automatically keep this PR conflict-free, as long as you don't add any commits to this branch yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting with
@depfu rebase.All Depfu comment commands