Уязвимость HTTP-сервера для Ruby/Rack приложений Puma, связанная с недостатками обработки HTTP-запросов, позволяющая нарушителю оказать влияние на целостность информации

Уязвимость HTTP-сервера для Ruby/Rack приложений Puma, связанная с неконтролируемым расходом ресурсов, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании

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.

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.

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.

Puma is a HTTP 1.1 server for Ruby/Rack applications. Prior to versions 5.5.1 and 4.3.9, using `puma` with a proxy which forwards HTTP header values which contain the LF character could allow HTTP request smugggling. A client could smuggle a request through a proxy, causing the proxy to send a response back to another unknown client. The only proxy which has this behavior, as far as the Puma team is aware of, is Apache Traffic Server. 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 vulnerability was patched in Puma 5.5.1 and 4.3.9. As a workaround, do not use Apache Traffic Server with `puma`.

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 5.6.2 and 4.3.11. This problem is fixed in Rails versions 7.02.2, 6.1.4.6, 6.0.4.6, and 5.2.6.2. Upgrading to a patched Rails _or_ Puma version fixes the vulnerability.

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.