CVE-2020-8166

A flaw was found in rubygem-actionpack. Forgery of a per-form CSRF token is possible allowing for any action to take place for that session. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data integrity...

CVE-2020-8167

A flaw was found in rubygem-actionview. A regression of CVE-2015-1840 causes Rails-ujs to send CSRF tokens to wrong domains. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data integrity...

CVE-2020-8165

A flaw was found in rubygem-activesupport. An untrusted user input can be written to the cache store using the raw: true parameter which can lead to the result being evaluated as a marshaled object instead of plain text. The threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity ...

CVE-2020-8162

A flaw was found in rubygem-activestorage. The ActiveStorage's S3 adapter that allows the Content-Length of a direct file upload to be modified by an end user. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data integrity...

CVE-2020-8164

A flaw was found in rubygem-actionpack. Untrusted hashes of data is possible for values of each, eachvalue, and eachpair which can lead to cases of user supplied information being leaked from Strong Parameters. Applications that use these hashes may inadvertently use untrusted user input. The...

CVE-2020-11076

A flaw was found in rubygem-puma. An attacker could smuggle an HTTP response, by using an invalid transfer-encoding header. Mitigation Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and...

CVE-2020-11077

A flaw was found in rubygem-puma. 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...

CVE-2020-11076

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...

CVE-2020-11077

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 firs...

CVE-2020-11076

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...

CVE-2020-11077

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 firs...

Code injection

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...

Cross site request forgery (csrf)

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 firs...

CVE-2020-11076

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...

CVE-2020-11077

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 firs...

CVE-2020-11077

CVE-2020-11077 affects the Puma RubyGem HTTP server. It describes an HTTP request/response smuggling scenario where a proxy with persistent connections and HTTP pipelining can cause the proxy to deliver a second response to the wrong client, due to how Puma parses the first request and its body. ...

CVE-2020-11077

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 firs...

CVE-2020-11076 HTTP Smuggling via Transfer-Encoding Header in Puma

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...

CVE-2020-11076

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...

CVE-2020-11076

CVE-2020-11076 affects Puma (RubyGem). The issue allows an attacker to smuggle an HTTP response by using an invalid transfer-encoding header. Affected versions are Puma before 4.3.4 and 3.12.5; fixes are in Puma 4.3.4 and 3.12.5. Connected advisories and bulletins (Debian, openSUSE/openSUSE-2020-...