HTTP response splitting via unsanitized header newlines
Published Feb 28, 2020 · Updated Aug 4, 2024
HTTP response splitting in Puma before 4.3.2 and 3.12.3 allows remote attackers to inject headers or response bodies through untrusted response-header input. Puma's response-header handling accepts CR or LF characters from application-supplied values, allowing those characters to terminate a header and append attacker-controlled headers or a second body. Exploitation requires an application route that copies attacker-influenced data into a response header; consequences include response manipulation and downstream attacks such as cross-site scripting, not automatic server takeover.
Summary
What happened
HTTP response splitting in Puma before 4.3.2 and 3.12.3 allows remote attackers to inject headers or response bodies through untrusted response-header input. Puma's response-header handling accepts CR or LF characters from application-supplied values, allowing those characters to terminate a header and append attacker-controlled headers or a second body. Exploitation requires an application route that copies attacker-influenced data into a response header; consequences include response manipulation and downstream attacks such as cross-site scripting, not automatic server takeover.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2020-5247
- Published
- Feb 28, 2020
- Updated
- Aug 4, 2024
- Vendor
- Puma
- Product
- Puma
- Classifications
- CWE-113, CWE-74, T1190
- Attack vector
- network
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Feb 28, 2020CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Aug 4, 2024Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
Compare these published version ranges with your installed build and any vendor patches.
- Affected versionversion=< 3.12.3
- Affected versionversion=>= 4.0.0, < 4.3.2
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Published CVSS scores
CVSS describes severity. EPSS estimates exploitation probability.
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Weakness, pattern, technique
Public exploit references
No public exploit references are available in this record.
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo