Skip to content

GHSA-g2pf-xv49-m2h5 CVE-2026-34835

Rack::Request accepts invalid Host characters, enabling host allowlist bypass

Medium RubyGems
Severity
4.8 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.20%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 9.84% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-1286 Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input
Fix
3.1.21
Upgrade rack to this version or later

Description

Summary

Rack::Request parses the Host header using an AUTHORITY regular expression that accepts characters not permitted in RFC-compliant hostnames, including /, ?, #, and @. Because req.host returns the full parsed value, applications that validate hosts using naive prefix or suffix checks can be bypassed.

For example, a check such as req.host.start_with?("myapp.com") can be bypassed with Host: myapp.com@evil.com, and a check such as req.host.end_with?("myapp.com") can be bypassed with Host: evil.com/myapp.com.

This can lead to host header poisoning in applications that use req.host, req.url, or req.base_url for link generation, redirects, or origin validation.

Details

Rack::Request parses the authority component using logic equivalent to:

AUTHORITY = /
  \A
  (?<host>
    \[(?<address>#{ipv6})\]
    |
    (?<address>[[[:graph:]&&[^\[\]]]]*?)
  )
  (:(?<port>\d+))?
  \z
/x

The character class used for non-IPv6 hosts accepts nearly all printable characters except [ and ]. This includes reserved URI delimiters such as @, /, ?, and #, which are not valid hostname characters under RFC 3986 host syntax.

As a result, values such as the following are accepted and returned through req.host:

myapp.com@evil.com
evil.com/myapp.com
evil.com#myapp.com

Applications that attempt to allowlist hosts using string prefix or suffix checks may therefore treat attacker-controlled hosts as trusted. For example:

req.host.start_with?("myapp.com")

accepts:

myapp.com@evil.com

and:

req.host.end_with?("myapp.com")

accepts:

evil.com/myapp.com

When those values are later used to build absolute URLs or enforce origin restrictions, the application may produce attacker-controlled results.

Impact

Applications that rely on req.host, req.url, or req.base_url may be affected if they perform naive host validation or assume Rack only returns RFC-valid hostnames.

In affected deployments, an attacker may be able to bypass host allowlists and poison generated links, redirects, or origin-dependent security decisions. This can enable attacks such as password reset link poisoning or other host header injection issues.

The practical impact depends on application behavior. If the application or reverse proxy already enforces strict host validation, exploitability may be reduced or eliminated.

Mitigation

  • Update to a patched version of Rack that rejects invalid authority characters in Host.
  • Enforce strict Host header validation at the reverse proxy or load balancer.
  • Do not rely on prefix or suffix string checks such as start_with? or end_with? for host allowlisting.
  • Use exact host allowlists, or exact subdomain boundary checks, after validating that the host is syntactically valid.

Affected versions

RubyGems

PackageVulnerableFixed in
rack
>= 3.0.0.beta1, < 3.1.21
3.1.21
rack
>= 3.2.0, < 3.2.6
3.2.6

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 → 3.1.21

bundler
bundle update rack # Gemfile: gem "rack", ">= 3.1.21"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 4.8

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-1286: Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input

The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.

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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
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
GHSA-q4qf-9j86-f5mh
Rack:: Static header_rules bypass via URL-encoded paths
Medium Also affects rack
Is this in your code?

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