GHSA-7g2v-jj9q-g3rg CVE-2025-25184
Possible Log Injection in Rack::CommonLogger
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.19%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 67.84% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-117 Improper Output Neutralization for Logs
- CWE-93 Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')
- Fix
2.2.11- Upgrade rack to this version or later
Description
Summary
Rack::CommonLogger can be exploited by crafting input that includes newline characters to manipulate log entries. The supplied proof-of-concept demonstrates injecting malicious content into logs.
Details
When a user provides the authorization credentials via Rack::Auth::Basic, if success, the username will be put in env['REMOTE_USER'] and later be used by Rack::CommonLogger for logging purposes.
The issue occurs when a server intentionally or unintentionally allows a user creation with the username contain CRLF and white space characters, or the server just want to log every login attempts. If an attacker enters a username with CRLF character, the logger will log the malicious username with CRLF characters into the logfile.
Impact
Attackers can break log formats or insert fraudulent entries, potentially obscuring real activity or injecting malicious data into log files.
Mitigation
- Update to the latest version of Rack.
Affected versions
RubyGems
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| rack | < 2.2.11 |
2.2.11 |
| rack | >= 3.0, < 3.0.12 |
3.0.12 |
| rack | >= 3.1, < 3.1.10 |
3.1.10 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
rack RubyGems → 2.2.11
- bundler
bundle update rack # Gemfile: gem "rack", ">= 2.2.11"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Proof of concept
CVSS 3.1 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-117: Improper Output Neutralization for Logs
The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
CWE-93: Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection')
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Avoid using CRLF as a special sequence.
- Implementation: Appropriately filter or quote CRLF sequences in user-controlled input.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-g2pf-xv49-m2h5 Rack::Request accepts invalid Host characters, enabling host allowlist bypass | Medium | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-v6x5-cg8r-vv6x Rack's multipart header parsing allows Denial of Service via escape-heavy quoted parameters | High | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-qfgr-crr9-7r49 Rack: Forwarded Header semicolon injection enables Host and Scheme spoofing | Medium | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-rx22-g9mx-qrhv Rack's improper unfolding of folded multipart headers preserves CRLF in parsed parameter values | Medium | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-q2ww-5357-x388 Rack has Content-Length mismatch in Rack::Files error responses | Medium | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-qv7j-4883-hwh7 Rack::Sendfile header-based X-Accel-Mapping regex injection enables unauthorized X-Accel-Redirect | High | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-8vqr-qjwx-82mw Rack's multipart parsing without Content-Length header allows unbounded chunked file uploads | High | Also affects rack |
| GHSA-x8cg-fq8g-mxfx Rack's multipart byte range processing allows denial of service via excessive overlapping ranges | High | Also affects rack |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor