Aggregates CVE and security vulnerability intelligence across all puma-related products, including CVSS, EPSS, publication dates, and vulnerability intelligence data.
Historical issues mainly involve vendor risk path handling, vendor risk denial of service, and vendor risk cross-site scripting and related problems; some flaws may lead to vendor impact file overwrite.
| CVE | Summary | Source | Max CVSS | EPSS % | Published | Updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-45614 | Puma is a Ruby/Rack web server built for parallelism. In affected versions clients could clobber values set by intermediate proxies (such as X-Forwarded-For) by providing a underscore version of the same header (X-Forwarded_For). Any users relying on proxy set variables is affected. v6.4.3/v5.6.9 now discards any headers using underscores if the non-underscore version also exists. Effectively, allowing the proxy defined headers to always win. Users are advised to upgrade. Nginx has a underscores | [email protected] | 5.4 | 0.80% | 2024-09-19 | 2025-11-03 |
| CVE-2024-21647 | Puma is a web server for Ruby/Rack applications built for parallelism. Prior to version 6.4.2, puma exhibited incorrect behavior when parsing chunked transfer encoding bodies in a way that allowed HTTP request smuggling. Fixed versions limits the size of chunk extensions. Without this limit, an attacker could cause unbounded resource (CPU, network bandwidth) consumption. This vulnerability has been fixed in versions 6.4.2 and 5.6.8. | [email protected] | 5.9 | 2.46% | 2024-01-08 | 2025-11-03 |
| CVE-2023-40175 | Puma is a Ruby/Rack web server built for parallelism. Prior to versions 6.3.1 and 5.6.7, puma exhibited incorrect behavior when parsing chunked transfer encoding bodies and zero-length Content-Length headers in a way that allowed HTTP request smuggling. Severity of this issue is highly dependent on the nature of the web site using puma is. This could be caused by either incorrect parsing of trailing fields in chunked transfer encoding bodies or by parsing of blank/zero-length Content-Length head | [email protected] | 7.3 | 0.38% | 2023-08-18 | 2024-11-21 |
| CVE-2022-24790 | 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 | [email protected] | 9.1 | 0.39% | 2022-03-30 | 2024-11-21 |
| CVE-2022-23634 | 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 | [email protected] | 8.0 | 0.48% | 2022-02-11 | 2024-11-21 |
| CVE-2021-41136 | 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 | [email protected] | 3.7 | 0.29% | 2021-10-12 | 2025-05-27 |
| CVE-2021-29509 | 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` c | [email protected] | 7.5 | 1.36% | 2021-05-11 | 2024-11-21 |
| 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 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 connec | [email protected] | 6.8 | 0.82% | 2020-05-22 | 2024-11-21 |
| 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. | [email protected] | 7.5 | 1.78% | 2020-05-22 | 2024-11-21 |
| CVE-2020-5249 | In Puma (RubyGem) before 4.3.3 and 3.12.4, 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 f | [email protected] | 6.5 | 0.51% | 2020-03-02 | 2024-11-21 |
| CVE-2020-5247 | In Puma (RubyGem) before 4.3.2 and before 3.12.3, if an application using Puma allows untrusted input in a response header, an attacker can use newline characters (i.e. `CR`, `LF` or`/r`, `/n`) 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 | [email protected] | 6.5 | 2.09% | 2020-02-28 | 2024-11-21 |
| CVE-2019-16770 | In Puma before versions 3.12.2 and 4.3.1, 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. This vulnerability is patched in Puma 4.3.1 and 3.12.2. | [email protected] | 5.3 | 1.59% | 2019-12-05 | 2024-11-21 |
| CVE-2017-8943 | The PUMA PUMATRAC app 3.0.2 for iOS does not verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate. | [email protected] | 5.9 | 0.12% | 2017-05-15 | 2026-05-13 |