Skip to content

🚨 [security] Update puma: 3.12.0 → 3.12.6 (patch) #36

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
depfu wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

🚨 [security] Update puma: 3.12.0 → 3.12.6 (patch) #36

depfu wants to merge 1 commit into from
+1 −1

Conversation

@depfu
Copy link
Contributor

@depfu depfu bot commented May 21, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Welcome to Depfu 👋

This is one of the first three pull requests with dependency updates we've sent your way. We tried to start with a few easy patch-level updates. Hopefully your tests will pass and you can merge this pull request without too much risk. This should give you an idea how Depfu works in general.

After you merge your first pull request, we'll send you a few more. We'll never open more than seven PRs at the same time so you're not getting overwhelmed with updates.

Let us know if you have any questions. Thanks so much for giving Depfu a try!

🚨 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 update. Please take a good look at what changed and the test results before merging this pull request.

What changed?

✳️ puma (3.12.0 → 3.12.6) · Repo · Changelog

Security Advisories 🚨

🚨 HTTP Smuggling via Transfer-Encoding Header in Puma

Impact

By using an invalid transfer-encoding header, an attacker could
smuggle an HTTP response.

Patches

The problem has been fixed in Puma 3.12.5 and Puma 4.3.4.

🚨 HTTP Smuggling via Transfer-Encoding Header in Puma

Impact

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.

🚨 HTTP Response Splitting (Early Hints) in Puma

Impact

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.

🚨 HTTP Response Splitting vulnerability in puma

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).

🚨 Keepalive thread overload/DoS 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.

Release Notes

3.12.1

v3.12.1

Does any of this look wrong? Please let us know.

Commits

See the full diff on Github. The new version differs by 45 commits:

Depfu Status

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 depfu bot added the depfu label May 21, 2020
@depfu depfu bot assigned ghayn May 21, 2020
@depfu depfu bot mentioned this pull request May 21, 2020
Closed
@depfu depfu bot changed the title Update puma: 3.12.0 → 3.12.6 (patch) 🚨 [security] Update puma: 3.12.0 → 3.12.6 (patch) May 22, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

@ghayn ghayn

Labels

depfu

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@ghayn